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 A3DAE60021B for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:25:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nB90PplD005660 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:25:51 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E98945DE4E for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:25:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A80445DE4D for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:25:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E751DB8038 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:25:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA6B1DB8037 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:25:50 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:21:57 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/7] memcg: move charge at task migration (04/Dec) Message-Id: <20091209092157.473f688b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091207153448.55e11607.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <20091204144609.b61cc8c4.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20091204155317.2d570a55.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091204160042.3e5fd83d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091207153448.55e11607.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Li Zefan , Paul Menage , linux-mm List-ID: On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:34:48 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:00:42 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:53:17 +0900 > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:46:09 +0900 > > > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > > > In this version: > > > > | 252M | 512M | 1G > > > > -----+--------+--------+-------- > > > > (1) | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.60 > > > > -----+--------+--------+-------- > > > > (2) | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.60 > > > > -----+--------+--------+-------- > > > > (3) | 0.22 | 0.44 | 0.89 > > > > > > > Nice ! > > > > > > > Ah. could you clarify... > > > > 1. How is fork()/exit() affected by this move ? > I measured using unixbench(./Run -c 1 spawn execl). I used the attached script to do > task migration infinitly(./switch3.sh /cgroup/memory/01 /cgroup/memory/02 [pid of bash]). > The script is executed on a different cpu from the unixbench's by taskset. > > (1) no task migration(run on /01) > > Execl Throughput 192.7 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 475.5 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > Execl Throughput 191.2 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 463.4 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > Execl Throughput 191.0 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 474.9 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > > (2) under task migration between /01 and /02 w/o setting move_charge_at_immigrate > > Execl Throughput 150.2 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 344.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > Execl Throughput 146.9 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 337.7 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > Execl Throughput 150.5 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 345.3 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > > (3) under task migration between /01 and /02 w/ setting move_charge_at_immigrate > > Execl Throughput 142.9 lps (29.9 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 323.1 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > Execl Throughput 146.6 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 332.0 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > Execl Throughput 150.9 lps (29.8 s, 2 samples) > Process Creation 344.2 lps (30.0 s, 2 samples) > > > (those values seem terrible :( I run them on KVM guest...) > (2) seems a bit better than (3), but the impact of task migration itself is > far bigger. > Thank you for interesting tests. (3) seems faster than I expected. > > > 2. How long cpuset's migration-at-task-move requires ? > > I guess much longer than this. > I measured in the same environment using fakenuma. It took 1.17sec for 256M, > 2.33sec for 512M, and 4.69sec for 1G. > Wow.. > > > 3. If need to reclaim memory for moving tasks, can this be longer ? > I think so. > > > If so, we may need some trick to release cgroup_mutex in task moving. > > > hmm, I see your concern but I think it isn't so easy.. IMHO, we need changes > in cgroup layer and should take care not to cause dead lock. > I agree here. If you can find somewhere good to write this on TO-DO-LIST, please. No other requests from me, now. 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