From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B85AC6B005D for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:36:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2ONuW0L005420 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:56:32 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381BD45DE57 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:56:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063E145DE53 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:56:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD04E08006 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:56:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C661DB805B for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:56:31 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:55:05 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) Message-Id: <20090325085505.35d14b38.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090324173414.GB24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090319165713.27274.94129.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090324173414.GB24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:04:14 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > I've run lmbench with the soft limit patches and the results show no > major overhead, there are some outliers and unexpected results. > > The outliers are at context-switch 16p/64K, in communicating > latencies and some unexpected results where the softlimit changes help improve > performance (I consider these to be in the range of noise). > ok, seems no regressions. but what is the softlimit value ? I think there result is of course souftlimit=0 case value...right ? -Kame > L M B E N C H 2 . 0 S U M M A R Y > ------------------------------------ > > > Basic system parameters > ---------------------------------------------------- > Host OS Description Mhz > > --------- ------------- ----------------------- ---- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- x86_64-linux-gnu 2131 > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- x86_64-linux-gnu 2131 > > Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Host OS Mhz null null open selct sig sig fork exec sh > call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc > --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- > ---- ---- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- 2131 0.67 1.33 29.9 36.8 6.484 1.12 12.1 508. 1708 6281 > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- 2131 0.66 1.31 29.8 36.8 6.486 1.11 12.3 483. 1697 6241 > > Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K > ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw > --------- ------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------------- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- 2.190 9.2300 3.1900 9.7400 10.8 7.93000 4.36000 > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- 0.970 4.8200 3.1300 8.8900 10.3 8.82000 10.7 > > *Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP > ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn > --------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- 2.190 22.0 58.5 53.3 68.7 61.7 64.9 210. > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- 0.970 20.3 55.3 54.0 53.8 79.7 64.5 211. > > File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page > Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault > --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- 51.6 48.6 153.6 87.4 20.2K 7.00000 > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- 51.6 48.2 137.8 83.9 20.2K 6.00000 > > *Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem > Mem > UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write > --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ----- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- 1367 778. 803. 2058.5 4659.4 1303.9 1303.5 4664 1422. > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- 1314 823. 812. 2061.3 4659.9 1290.2 1280.9 4662 1422. > > Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better > (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) > --------------------------------------------------- > Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses > --------- ------------- ---- ----- ------ -------- ------- > nosoftlim Linux 2.6.29- 2131 1.875 6.5990 76.8 > softlimit Linux 2.6.29- 2131 1.875 6.5980 76.8 > > Earlier, I ran reaim and saw no regression there as well. > > -- > Balbir > -- 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