From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com (mail-pd0-f171.google.com [209.85.192.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6BA6B0035 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:00:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z10so1551990pdj.2 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:00:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com (LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com. [156.147.1.111]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn4si275022pbc.46.2013.12.12.18.00.20 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:00:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:03:23 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] Memory compaction efficiency improvements Message-ID: <20131213020323.GB8845@lge.com> References: <1386757477-10333-1-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz> <20131212061223.GA5912@lge.com> <52A9B9A2.2050306@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52A9B9A2.2050306@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel > >>stress-highalloc > >> 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 > >> 2-thp 3-thp 4-thp 5-thp 6-thp > >>Success 1 Min 2.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 (-250.00%) 18.00 (-800.00%) 19.00 (-850.00%) 26.00 (-1200.00%) > >>Success 1 Mean 19.20 ( 0.00%) 17.80 ( 7.29%) 29.20 (-52.08%) 29.90 (-55.73%) 32.80 (-70.83%) > >>Success 1 Max 27.00 ( 0.00%) 29.00 ( -7.41%) 35.00 (-29.63%) 36.00 (-33.33%) 37.00 (-37.04%) > >>Success 2 Min 3.00 ( 0.00%) 8.00 (-166.67%) 21.00 (-600.00%) 21.00 (-600.00%) 32.00 (-966.67%) > >>Success 2 Mean 19.30 ( 0.00%) 17.90 ( 7.25%) 32.20 (-66.84%) 32.60 (-68.91%) 35.70 (-84.97%) > >>Success 2 Max 27.00 ( 0.00%) 30.00 (-11.11%) 36.00 (-33.33%) 37.00 (-37.04%) 39.00 (-44.44%) > >>Success 3 Min 62.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( 0.00%) 85.00 (-37.10%) 75.00 (-20.97%) 64.00 ( -3.23%) > >>Success 3 Mean 66.30 ( 0.00%) 65.50 ( 1.21%) 85.60 (-29.11%) 83.40 (-25.79%) 83.50 (-25.94%) > >>Success 3 Max 70.00 ( 0.00%) 69.00 ( 1.43%) 87.00 (-24.29%) 86.00 (-22.86%) 87.00 (-24.29%) > >> > >> 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 > >> 2-thp 3-thp 4-thp 5-thp 6-thp > >>User 6547.93 6475.85 6265.54 6289.46 6189.96 > >>System 1053.42 1047.28 1043.23 1042.73 1038.73 > >>Elapsed 1835.43 1821.96 1908.67 1912.74 1956.38 > > > >Hello, Vlastimil. > > > >I have some questions related to your stat, not your patchset, > >just for curiosity. :) > > > >Are these results, "elapsed time" and "vmstat", for Success 3 line scenario? > > No that's for the whole test which does the scenarios in succession. > Okay! > >If so, could you show me others? > >I wonder why thp case consumes more system time rather than no-thp case. > > Unfortunately these stats are not that useful as they don't > distinguish the 3 phases and also include what the background load > does. They are included just to show that nothing truly dramatic is > happening. > So > > >And I found that elapsed time has no big difference between both cases, > >roughly less than 2%. In this situation, do we get more benefits with > >aggressive allocation like no-thp case? > > Elapsed time suffers from the same problem, so it's again hard to > say how relevant it actually is to the allocator workload and how > much to background load. It seems that the more successful allocator > is, the longer elapsed time (in both thp and nothp case). My guess > is that less memory available for the background load makes it > progress slower which affects the duration of the test as a whole. > > I hope that in case of further compaction patches that would be > potentially more intrusive to the its design (and not bugfixes and > simple tweaks to the existing design as this series) I will have a > more detailed breakdown of what time is spent where. Okay! Thanks. -- 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