Re: REGRESSION: Performance regressions from switching anon_vma->lock to mutex

[Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 18:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> Tim, have you tried running your bigger load with that patch? You
> could try my patch on top too just to match Peter's tree, but I doubt
> that's the big first-order issue.
> 
>                        Linus

I ran exim with different kernel versions.  Using 2.6.39-vanilla
kernel as a baseline, the results are as follow:

			Throughput
2.6.39(vanilla)		100.0%
2.6.39+ra-patch 	166.7%  (+66.7%)	(note: tmpfs readahead patchset is merged in 3.0-rc2)
3.0-rc2(vanilla)	 68.0%	(-32%)
3.0-rc2+linus		115.7%	(+15.7%)
3.0-rc2+linus+softirq	 86.2%	(-17.3%)

So Linus' patch certainly helped things over vanilla 3.0-rc2, but throughput is still 
less than the 2.6.39 with the readahead patch set.  The softirq patch I used was from Ingo's
combined patch from Shaohua and Paul.  It seems odd that it makes things worse.  I will
recheck this data probably just this patch and without Linus' patch later.

I also notice that the run to run variations have increased quite a bit for 3.0-rc2.
I'm using 6 runs per kernel.  Perhaps a side effect of converting the anon_vma->lock to mutex?

			(Max-Min)/avg 
2.6.39(vanilla)		3%
2.6.39+ra-patch 	3%	
3.0-rc2(vanilla)	20% 
3.0-rc2+linus		36%
3.0-rc2+linus+softirq	40% 

Thanks.

Tim

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>