From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:35:40 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/9] remove page_cgroup pointer (with some enhancements) Message-Id: <20080912183540.6e7d2468.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080911200855.94d33d3b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080911200855.94d33d3b.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, "xemul@openvz.org" , "hugh@veritas.com" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, menage@google.com List-ID: On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:08:55 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 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: email@kvack.org