From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E794C6B0038 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 06:35:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so69860566pab.0 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 03:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com. [134.134.136.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a73si11633986pfj.40.2015.12.03.03.35.10 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 03:35:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:35:08 +0800 From: Aaron Lu Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] reduce latency of direct async compaction Message-ID: <20151203113508.GA23780@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> References: <1449130247-8040-1-git-send-email-vbabka@suse.cz> <20151203092525.GA20945@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> <56600DAA.4050208@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56600DAA.4050208@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim , Rik van Riel , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Minchan Kim On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:38:50AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 12/03/2015 10:25 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:10:44AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> Aaron, could you try this on your testcase? > > > > The test result is placed at: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4enBkdVFScXhFM0U > > > > For some reason, the patches made the performace worse. The base tree is > > today's Linus git 25364a9e54fb8296837061bf684b76d20eec01fb, and its > > performace is about 1000MB/s. After applying this patch series, the > > performace drops to 720MB/s. > > > > Please let me know if you need more information, thanks. > > Hm, compaction stats are at 0. The code in the patches isn't even running. > Can you provide the same data also for the base tree? My bad, I uploaded the wrong data :-/ I uploaded again: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4UFI4TEQ3THYta0E And I just run the base tree with trace-cmd and found that its performace drops significantly(from 1000MB/s to 6xxMB/s), is it that trace-cmd will impact performace a lot? Any suggestions on how to run the test regarding trace-cmd? i.e. should I aways run usemem under trace-cmd or only when necessary? Thanks, Aaron -- 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