From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f199.google.com (mail-io0-f199.google.com [209.85.223.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C859D6B0253 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:28:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-io0-f199.google.com with SMTP id m98so164594248iod.2 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from g9t5009.houston.hpe.com (g9t5009.houston.hpe.com. [15.241.48.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c129si10083530ita.83.2017.01.23.15.28.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:28:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:27:58 -0800 From: Till Smejkal Subject: Re: Benchmarks for the Linux kernel MM architecture Message-ID: <20170123232758.lfxhffirokxpx62g@arch-dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01f601d26bb8$380bfd30$a823f790$@alibaba-inc.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Hillf Danton Cc: 'David Nellans' , linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Hillf Danton wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 11:36 PM David Nellans wrote: > > > > On 01/06/2017 04:29 PM, Till Smejkal wrote: > > > Dear Linux MM community > > > > > > My name is Till Smejkal and I am a PhD Student at Hewlett Packard Enterprise. For a > > > couple of weeks I have been working on a patchset for the Linux kernel which > > > introduces a new functionality that allows address spaces to be first class citizens > > > in the OS. The implementation is based on a concept presented in this [1] paper. > > > > > > The basic idea of the patchset is that an AS not necessarily needs to be coupled with > > > a process but can be created and destroyed independently. A process still has its own > > > AS which is created with the process and which also gets destroyed with the process, > > > but in addition there can be other AS in the OS which are not bound to the lifetime > > > of any process. These additional AS have to be created and destroyed actively by the > > > user and can be attached to a process as additional AS. Attaching such an AS to a > > > process allows the process to have different views on the memory between which the > > > process can switch arbitrarily during its executing. > > > > > > This feature can be used in various different ways. For example to compartmentalize a > > > process for security reasons or to improve the performance of data-centric > > > applications. > > > > > > However, before I intend to submit the patchset to LKML, I first like to perform > > > some benchmarks to identify possible performance drawbacks introduced by my changes > > > to the original memory management architecture. Hence, I would like to ask if anyone > > > of you could point me to some benchmarks which I can run to test my patchset and > > > compare it against the original implementation. > > > > > > If there are any questions, please feel free to ask me. I am happy to answer any > > > question related to the patchset and its idea/intention. > > > > > > Regards > > > Till > > > > > > P.S.: Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to this mailing list. > > > > > > [1] http://impact.crhc.illinois.edu/shared/Papers/ASPLOS16-SpaceJMP.pdf > > > > https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests > > > And please take a look at linux-4.9/tools/testing/selftests/vm. > > The last resort seems to ask Mel on linux-mm for > howtos he knows. > Mel Gorman > > Good luck > Hillf Hi David and Hillf, Thank you very much for your feedback. Both of your suggestions were very helpful. I could find some bugs in my implementation and also identified two minor performance problems that I could fix easily. Thanks, Till -- 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