From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A486B004F for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:26:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [UPDATED][PATCH][mmotm] Help Root Memory Cgroup Resource Counters Scale Better (v5) Message-ID: <20090815142644.GC15941@elte.hu> References: <20090813065504.GG5087@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090813162640.fe2349e9.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20090813080206.GH5087@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090813083524.GC21389@elte.hu> <20090814020122.GL5087@balbir.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090814020122.GL5087@balbir.in.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Balbir Singh Cc: Daisuke Nishimura , Andrew Morton , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "menage@google.com" , xemul@openvz.org, prarit@redhat.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: * Balbir Singh wrote: > * Ingo Molnar [2009-08-13 10:35:24]: > > > > > * Balbir Singh wrote: > > > > > Without Patch > > > > > > Performance counter stats for '/home/balbir/parallel_pagefault': > > > > > > 5826093739340 cycles # 809.989 M/sec > > > 408883496292 instructions # 0.070 IPC > > > 7057079452 cache-references # 0.981 M/sec > > > 3036086243 cache-misses # 0.422 M/sec > > > > > With this patch applied > > > > > > Performance counter stats for '/home/balbir/parallel_pagefault': > > > > > > 5957054385619 cycles # 828.333 M/sec > > > 1058117350365 instructions # 0.178 IPC > > > 9161776218 cache-references # 1.274 M/sec > > > 1920494280 cache-misses # 0.267 M/sec > > > > Nice how the instruction count and the IPC value incraesed, and the > > cache-miss count decreased. > > > > Btw., a 'perf stat' suggestion: you can also make use of built-in > > error bars via repeating parallel_pagefault N times: > > > > aldebaran:~> perf stat --repeat 3 /bin/ls > > Ingo, with the repeat experiements I see > > 7192354.545647 task-clock-msecs # 23.955 CPUs ( +- 0.002% ) > 425627 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.333% ) > 155 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 10.897% ) > 95336481 page-faults # 0.013 M/sec ( +- 0.085% ) > 5951929070187 cycles # 827.536 M/sec ( +- 0.009% ) > 1058312583796 instructions # 0.178 IPC ( +- 0.076% ) > 9616609083 cache-references # 1.337 M/sec ( +- 2.536% ) > 1952367514 cache-misses # 0.271 M/sec ( +- 0.156% ) > > 300.246532761 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.002% ) > > Except for the CPU migrations and the cache references, all the > other parameters seem to be well within an acceptable error range. Yeah, nice! Ingo -- 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