From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:47:57 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: More vm benchmarking Message-Id: <20040225014757.4c79f2af.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <403C66D2.6010302@cyberone.com.au> References: <403C66D2.6010302@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Nikita@Namesys.COM List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > > kernel | run | -j5 | -j10 | -j15 | > 2.6.3 1 136 886 2511 > 2.6.3 2 150 838 2465 > > -mm2 1 136 646 1484 > -mm2 2 142 676 1265 > > -mm3 1 135 881 1828 > -mm3 2 146 790 1844 > > This quite clearly shows your patches hurting as I told you. Probably. But these differences are small, relative to some differences wrt 2.4.x > Why did it get slower? Dunno. Maybe the workload prefers imbalanced zone scanning. > I assume it is because the batching patch places uneven > pressure on normal and DMA zones. The patch improves highmem-vs-lowmem balancing from 10:1 to 1:1. What makes you think that it worsens ZONE_NORMAL-vs-ZONE_DMA balancing? It's easy enough to instrument - just split pgsteal_lo into pgsteal_normal and pgsteal_dma. -- 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: aart@kvack.org