Re: [PATCH 6/9] clockpro-clockpro.patch

[Peter Zijlstra <peter@programming.kicks-ass.net>]

Iwamoto-San,

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:25 +0900, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote: 
> (Removed linux-kernel@ from Cc:)
> 
> At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:30:10 +0900,
> IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
> > I thought this situation means that page access frequencies cannot be
> > correctly compared and leads to suboptimal performance, but I couldn't
> > prove that.  However, I've managed to create an example workload where
> > clockpro performs worse.  I'm not sure if the example is related to
> > this hand problem.  I'll describe it in the next mail.
> 
> Environment: Dell 1850 4GB EM64T CPUx2 HT disabled, x86_64 kernel
> Kernel 1: linux-2.6.15-rc5
> Kernel 2: linux-2.6.15-rc5 + clockpro patch posted in 2005/12/31
> Kernel 3: linux-2.6.15-rc5 + clockpro patch posted in 2005/12/31 +
> 	  modification to disable page cache usage from ZONE_DMA
> 	  (to rule out possible zone balancing related problem)
> Kernel 1 and 2 were booted with "mem=1008m", Kernel 3 was booted with
> "mem=1024m".
> 
> The test program: 2read.c (attached below)
> 	2read.c repeatedly reads from two files zero and zero2.
> 	Command line arguments specify the ranges to be read. (See the
> 	code for detail)
> 	It prints the number of read operations/2 every 5 seconds and
> 	terminates in 5 minutes.
> 
> $ cc -O 2read.c
> $ ls -l zero*
> -rw-r--r--  1 toshii users 1073741824 2006-01-13 17:27 zero
> -rw-r--r--  1 toshii users 1572864000 2006-01-20 18:20 zero2
> 
> (with Kernel 1)
> $ for n in 100 200 300 400 500; do
> > ./a.out -n $n $((1100-$n)) > /tmp/2d.$n ; done
> (with Kernel 2)
> $ for n in 100 200 300 400 500; do
> > ./a.out -n $n $((1100-$n)) > /tmp/2d.c.$n ; done
> (with Kernel 3)
> $ for n in 100 200 300 400 500; do
> > ./a.out -n $n $((1100-$n)) > /tmp/2d.c.nodma.$n ; done
> 
> The table below is the last numbers printed by the test program
> ((number of reads)/2 in 5 minutes).  Clockpro (with or without the
> ZONE_DMA modification) is always slower with one exception, and
> the slowdown can be as large as 42-54%.
> 
> I've put the complete data and some generated figures at
> http://people.valinux.co.jp/~iwamoto/clockpro-20051231/
> 
>  n     Kernel 1    Kernel 2   Kernel 3
> ======================================
> 100    373600      298720     395818
> 200    385639	   272749     272166
> 300    371047	   243734     262370
> 400    367691	   213974     169714
> 500    147130	   126284     103038

Great test case, I'll run this on my latest code and look into this.
Thanks for the effort.

As for the lapping of the hands, I'll have to get back to you on that
one. The way I understood the algorithm it is perfectly fine for the
hands to lap. I'll try and express my understanding in a later mail.


Kind regards,
Peter



--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>