From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 17:09:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230102160946.GD16704@blackbody.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y6SEHTkHSNYQmv5k@P9FQF9L96D>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]
Hello.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 08:21:49AM -0800, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev> wrote:
> Do you have any numbers to share?
The numbers are in bko#216038, let me explain them here a bit.
I used the will-it-scale benchmark that repeatedly locks/unlocks a file
and runs in parallel.
The final numbers were:
sample metric δ δ_cg
no accounting implemented 32307750 0 %
accounting in cg 2.49577e+07 -23 % 0 %
accounting in cg + cache 2.51642e+07 -22 % +1 %
Hence my result was only 1% improvement.
(But it was a very simple try, not delving into any of the CPU cache
statistics.)
Question: Were your measurements multi-threaded?
> 1) some people periodically complain that accounted allocations are slow
> in comparison to non-accounted and slower than they were with page-based
> accounting,
My result above would not likely satisfy those complainers I know about.
But if your additional changes are better the additional code complexity
may be justified in the end.
> Btw, I'm working on a patch 3 for this series, which in early tests brings
> additional ~25% improvement in my benchmark, hopefully will post it soon as
> a part of v1.
Please send it with more details about your benchmark to put the numbers
into context.
Michal
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-02 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-20 18:27 [PATCH RFC 0/2] mm: kmem: optimize obj_cgroup pointer retrieval Roman Gushchin
2022-12-20 18:27 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] mm: kmem: optimize get_obj_cgroup_from_current() Roman Gushchin
2022-12-20 19:55 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-12-20 21:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-12-20 18:27 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] mm: kmem: add direct objcg pointer to task_struct Roman Gushchin
2022-12-20 20:44 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-12-22 13:50 ` Michal Koutný
2022-12-22 16:21 ` Roman Gushchin
2023-01-02 16:09 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230102160946.GD16704@blackbody.suse.cz \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox