* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-05-19 01:01:00]: > Balbir Singh wrote: > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-05-18 > > 19:11:07]: > > > >> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:46:39 +0530 > >> Balbir Singh wrote: > >> > >> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-05-16 > >> 02:45:03]: > >> > > >> > > Balbir Singh wrote: > >> > > > Feature: Remove the overhead associated with the root cgroup > >> > > > > >> > > > From: Balbir Singh > >> > > > > >> > > > This patch changes the memory cgroup and removes the overhead > >> associated > >> > > > with LRU maintenance of all pages in the root cgroup. As a > >> side-effect, we > >> > > > can > >> > > > no longer set a memory hard limit in the root cgroup. > >> > > > > >> > > > A new flag is used to track page_cgroup associated with the root > >> cgroup > >> > > > pages. A new flag to track whether the page has been accounted or > >> not > >> > > > has been added as well. > >> > > > > >> > > > Review comments higly appreciated > >> > > > > >> > > > Tests > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Tested with allocate, touch and limit test case for a non-root > >> cgroup > >> > > > 2. For the root cgroup tested performance impact with reaim > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > +patch mmtom-08-may-2009 > >> > > > AIM9 1362.93 1338.17 > >> > > > Dbase 17457.75 16021.58 > >> > > > New Dbase 18070.18 16518.54 > >> > > > Shared 9681.85 8882.11 > >> > > > Compute 16197.79 15226.13 > >> > > > > >> > > Hmm, at first impression, I can't convice the numbers... > >> > > Just avoiding list_add/del makes programs _10%_ faster ? > >> > > Could you show changes in cpu cache-miss late if you can ? > >> > > (And why Aim9 goes bad ?) > >> > > >> > OK... I'll try but I am away on travel for 3 weeks :( you can try and > >> run > >> > this as well > >> > > >> tested aim7 with some config. > >> > >> CPU: Xeon 3.1GHz/4Core x2 (8cpu) > >> Memory: 32G > >> HDD: Usual? Scsi disk (just 1 disk) > >> (try_to_free_pages() etc...will never be called.) > >> > >> Multiuser config. #of tasks 1100 (near to peak on my host) > >> > >> 10runs. > >> rc6mm1 score(Jobs/min) > >> 44009.1 44844.5 44691.1 43981.9 44992.6 > >> 44544.9 44179.1 44283.0 44442.9 45033.8 average=44500 > >> > >> +patch > >> 44656.8 44270.8 44706.7 44106.1 44467.6 > >> 44585.3 44167.0 44756.7 44853.9 44249.4 average=44482 > >> > >> Dbase config. #of tasks 25 > >> rc6mm1 score (jobs/min) > >> 11022.7 11018.9 11037.9 11003.8 11087.5 > >> 11145.2 11133.6 11068.3 11091.3 11106.6 average=11071 > >> > >> +patch > >> 10888.0 10973.7 10913.9 11000.0 10984.9 > >> 10996.2 10969.9 10921.3 10921.3 11053.1 average=10962 > >> > >> Hmm, 1% improvement ? > >> (I think this is reasonable score of the effect of this patch) > >> > > > > Thanks for the test, I have a 4 CPU system and I create 80 users, > > larger config shows larger difference at my end. > Sorry, above Dbase test was on 54 threads. I'll try 20*8=160 threads. > cool! Thanks > > I think even 1% is > > quite reasonable as you mentioned. If the patch looks fine, should we > > ask for larger testing by Andrew? > > > Hmm, as you like. My interest is bugfix for swap leaking now. I've seen that too.. I think that has been going on for long and I am afraid it is hurting features like soft limit, but bug fixing is important. Hopefully we'll have a good solution soon. > Because this change adds big special case, we need much tests, anyway. > And please show _environment_ where benchmarks run. > BTW, I wonder whetere we can have more improvements in this special case... > > >> Anyway, I'm afraid of difference between mine and your kernel config. > >> plz enjoy your travel for now :) > > > > Sorry, I did not send you my .config, why do you think .config makes a > > difference? > I wanted to know what kind of DEBUG/TRACE config is on. and some others. > > > I think loading AIM makes the difference and I also made > > one other change to the aim tests. I run with "sync" linked to > > /bin/true and use tmpfs for temporary partition and 20*numnber of cpus > > for number of users. > > > Is it usual method at using AIM ? (Sorry, I'm not sure). > It seems to break AIM7's purpose of "measuring typical workload"... > No.. it is not.. but sync has a large overhead, so I use /bin/true. I can try without it and report back. > > If required, I can still send out my .config to you. > > > If you can, plz. (just for my interest ;) > Attached, please see -- Balbir