From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S934212AbYD2PkR@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S934212AbYD2PkR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:40:17 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754109AbYD2Pj7
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:39:59 -0400
Received: from extu-mxob-1.symantec.com ([216.10.194.28]:36625 "EHLO
	extu-mxob-1.symantec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754886AbYD2Pj6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:39:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:39 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
X-X-Sender: hugh@blonde.site
To: Ross Biro <rossb@google.com>
cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Page Faults slower in 2.6.25-rc9 than 2.6.23
In-Reply-To: <d43160c70804290821i2bb0bc17m21b0c5838631e0b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804291629410.23101@blonde.site>
References: <d43160c70804290610t2135a271hd9b907529e89e74e@mail.gmail.com> 
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804291447040.5058@blonde.site> 
 <661de9470804290752w1dc0cfb3k72e81d828a45765e@mail.gmail.com>
 <d43160c70804290821i2bb0bc17m21b0c5838631e0b8@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ross Biro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Balbir Singh
> <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >  Hmm.. strange.. I don't remember the overhead being so bad (I'll
> >  relook at my old numbers). I'll try and git-bisect this one
> 
> I'm checking 2.6.24 now.  A quick run of 2.6.25-rc9 without fake numa
> showed no real change.

Worth checking 2.6.24, yes.  But you've already made it clear that
you do NOT have mem cgroups in your 2.6.25-rc9, so Balbir (probably)
need not worry about your regression: my guess was wrong on that.

Hugh