lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 6/8] mm/lru: remove rcu_read_lock to fix performance regression
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:40:58AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>
> ?? 2019/11/12 ????10:38, Matthew Wilcox ????:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:06:26PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> Intel 0day report there are performance regression on this patchset.
> >> The detailed info points to rcu_read_lock + PROVE_LOCKING which causes
> >> queued_spin_lock_slowpath waiting too long time to get lock.
> >> Remove rcu_read_lock is safe here since we had a spinlock hold.
> > Argh. You have not sent these patches in a properly reviewable form!
> > I wasted all that time reviewing the earlier patch in this series only to
> > find out that you changed it here. FIX THE PATCH, don't send a fix-patch
> > on top of it!
> >
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Very sorry for your time! The main reasons I use a separate patch since a, Intel 0day asking me to credit their are founding, and I don't know how to give a clearly/elegant explanation for a non-exist regression in a fixed patch. b, this regression is kindly pretty tricky. Maybe it's better saying thanks in version change log of cover-letter?
>

Add something like this to the patch

[lkp@intel.com: Fix RCU-related regression reported by LKP robot]
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
...

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-13 12:41    [W:0.091 / U:1.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site