Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/9] remove page_cgroup pointer (with some enhancements)

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:08:55 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Peformance comparison is below.
> ==
> rc5-mm1
> ==
> Execl Throughput                           3006.5 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
> C Compiler Throughput                      1006.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4863.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                943.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               482.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124804.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> 
> After this series
> ==
> Execl Throughput                           3003.3 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
> C Compiler Throughput                      1008.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4580.6 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                913.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               569.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124918.7 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> 
> Hmm..no loss ? But maybe I should find what I can do to improve this.
> 
This is the latest number.
 - added "Used" flag as Balbir's one.
 - rewrote and optimize uncharge() path.
 - move bit_spinlock() (lock_page_cgroup()) to header file as inilned function.

Execl Throughput                           3064.9 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                       998.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4717.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                928.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               474.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         127184.0 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

Hmm..it seems something bad? in concurrent shell test.
(But this -mm's shell test is not trustable. 15% slowdown from rc4's.)

I tries to avoid mz->lru_lock (it was in my set), also. But I find I can't.
I postpone that. (maybe remove mz->lru_lock and depends on zone->lock is choice.
This make memcg's lru to be synchronized with global lru.)

Unfortunately, I'll be offline for 2 or 3 days. I'm sorry if I can't make
quick response.

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