Re: [mm] 4e2c82a409: ltp.overcommit_memory01.fail

[Qian Cai]

On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 08:58:54PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 08:15:03AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > On Jul 5, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I did reproduce the problem, and from the debugging, this should
> > > be the same root cause as lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200526181459.GD991@xxxxxx/
> > > that loosing the batch cause some accuracy problem, and the solution of
> > > adding some sync is still needed, which is dicussed in
> > 
> > Well, before taking any of those patches now to fix the regression,
> > we will need some performance data first. If it turned out the
> > original performance gain is no longer relevant anymore due to this
> > regression fix on top, it is best to drop this patchset and restore
> > that VM_WARN_ONCE, so you can retry later once you found a better
> > way to optimize.
> 
> The fix of adding sync only happens when the memory policy is being
> changed to OVERCOMMIT_NEVER, which is not a frequent operation in
> normal cases.
> 
> For the performance improvment data both in commit log and 0day report
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200622132548.GS5535@shao2-debian/
> it is for the will-it-scale's mmap testcase, which will not runtime
> change memory overcommit policy, so the data should be still valid
> with this fix.

Well, I would expect people are perfectly reasonable to use
OVERCOMMIT_NEVER for some workloads making it more frequent operations.
The question is now if any of those regression fixes would now regress
performance of OVERCOMMIT_NEVER workloads or just in-par with the data
before the patchset?

Given now this patchset has had so much churn recently, I would think
"should be still valid" is not really the answer we are looking for.

> 
> Thanks,
> Feng
> 
>