Re: 6.10/regression/bisected - after f1d97e769152 I spotted increased execution time of the kswapd0 process and symptoms as if there is not enough memory

[Filipe Manana]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 10:24 AM Mikhail Gavrilov
<mikhail.v.gavrilov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 7:16 PM Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > That's weird, I think you might be observing some variance.
> > I noticed that too for your reports of the test2 branch and the old
> > test3 branch, which were very identical, yet you got a very
> > significant difference between them.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> up  1:00
> root         269 10.2  0.0      0     0 ?        S    10:06   6:13 [kswapd0]
> up  2:01
> root         269  9.1  0.0      0     0 ?        S    10:06  11:07 [kswapd0]
> up  3:00
> root         269  8.4  0.0      0     0 ?        R    10:06  15:18 [kswapd0]
> up  4:21
> root         269 11.7  0.0      0     0 ?        S    10:06  30:33 [kswapd0]
> up  5:01
> root         269 11.7  0.0      0     0 ?        S    10:06  35:19 [kswapd0]
> up  6:27
> root         269 11.5  0.0      0     0 ?        S    10:06  44:39 [kswapd0]
> up  7:00
> root         269 11.2  0.0      0     0 ?        R    10:06  47:18 [kswapd0]
>
> The measurement error can reach ±10 min.
> Did you plan to merge the fix before the 6.10 release?

I've submitted a patchset with the goal to apply against 6.10 (see the
notes there in the cover letter):

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1720448663.git.fdmanana@xxxxxxxx/

But it's up to David to submit to Linus, as he's the maintainer.
Though I haven't heard from him yet.

I plan at least one more improvement for the shrinker, but I would
like to know too if those patches go into 6.10 before it's released or
not,
because there are conflicts with the for-next branch.

> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike Gavrilov.