From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f199.google.com (mail-pf0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4C36B0033 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf0-f199.google.com with SMTP id f144so244900408pfa.3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:23:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from out4434.biz.mail.alibaba.com (out4434.biz.mail.alibaba.com. [47.88.44.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w4si4233587pfi.279.2017.01.10.19.23.18 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 19:23:19 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: "Hillf Danton" From: "Hillf Danton" References: <20170106222912.o6vkh7rarxdak4ga@arch-test> <4f430912-d506-3904-c073-e1e121c3fc70@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <4f430912-d506-3904-c073-e1e121c3fc70@nvidia.com> Subject: Re: Benchmarks for the Linux kernel MM architecture Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:10:10 +0800 Message-ID: <01f601d26bb8$380bfd30$a823f790$@alibaba-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: 'David Nellans' , 'Till Smejkal' , linux-mm@kvack.org On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:36 PM David Nellans wrote: > > On 01/06/2017 04:29 PM, Till Smejkal wrote: > > Dear Linux MM community > > > > My name is Till Smejkal and I am a PhD Student at Hewlett Packard Enterprise. For a > > couple of weeks I have been working on a patchset for the Linux kernel which > > introduces a new functionality that allows address spaces to be first class citizens > > in the OS. The implementation is based on a concept presented in this [1] paper. > > > > The basic idea of the patchset is that an AS not necessarily needs to be coupled with > > a process but can be created and destroyed independently. A process still has its own > > AS which is created with the process and which also gets destroyed with the process, > > but in addition there can be other AS in the OS which are not bound to the lifetime > > of any process. These additional AS have to be created and destroyed actively by the > > user and can be attached to a process as additional AS. Attaching such an AS to a > > process allows the process to have different views on the memory between which the > > process can switch arbitrarily during its executing. > > > > This feature can be used in various different ways. For example to compartmentalize a > > process for security reasons or to improve the performance of data-centric > > applications. > > > > However, before I intend to submit the patchset to LKML, I first like to perform > > some benchmarks to identify possible performance drawbacks introduced by my changes > > to the original memory management architecture. Hence, I would like to ask if anyone > > of you could point me to some benchmarks which I can run to test my patchset and > > compare it against the original implementation. > > > > If there are any questions, please feel free to ask me. I am happy to answer any > > question related to the patchset and its idea/intention. > > > > Regards > > Till > > > > P.S.: Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to this mailing list. > > > > [1] http://impact.crhc.illinois.edu/shared/Papers/ASPLOS16-SpaceJMP.pdf > > https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests > And please take a look at linux-4.9/tools/testing/selftests/vm. The last resort seems to ask Mel on linux-mm for howtos he knows. Mel Gorman Good luck Hillf -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org