From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:17:50 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page Message-Id: <20080901141750.37101182.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080901130351.f005d5b6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080831174756.GA25790@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20080901090102.46b75141.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48BB6160.4070904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080901130351.f005d5b6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , hugh@veritas.com, menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, "nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au" List-ID: On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:03:51 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > That depends, if we can get the lockless page cgroup done quickly, I don't mind > > waiting, but if it is going to take longer, I would rather push these changes > > in. > The development of lockless-page_cgroup is not stalled. I'm just waiting for > my 8cpu box comes back from maintainance... > If you want to see, I'll post v3 with brief result on small (2cpu) box. > This is current status (result of unixbench.) result of 2core/1socket x86-64 system. == [disabled] Execl Throughput 3103.3 lps (29.7 secs, 3 samples) C Compiler Throughput 1052.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5915.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1142.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 586.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 131463.3 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) [rc4mm1] Execl Throughput 3004.4 lps (29.6 secs, 3 samples) C Compiler Throughput 1017.9 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5726.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1124.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 576.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125446.5 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) [lockless] Execl Throughput 3041.0 lps (29.8 secs, 3 samples) C Compiler Throughput 1025.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5713.6 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1113.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 571.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125417.9 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) == >>From this, single-thread results are good. multi-process results are not good ;) So, I think the number of atomic ops are reduced but I have should-be-fixed contention or cache-bouncing problem yet. I'd like to fix this and check on 8 core system when it is back. Recently, I wonder within-3%-overhead is realistic goal. Thanks, -Kame -- 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