From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 36so487188yxh.26 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <28c262360810062129h184f15cv5a31e1d598d28a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:29:10 +0900 From: "MinChan Kim" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Reclaim page capture v4 In-Reply-To: <20081003154616.EF74.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1222864261-22570-1-git-send-email-apw@shadowen.org> <28c262360810011946p443350d3hcb271720892e7b85@mail.gmail.com> <20081003154616.EF74.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Andy Whitcroft , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Lameter , Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> Hi, Andy. >> >> I tested your patch in my desktop. >> The test is just kernel compile with single thread. >> My system environment is as follows. >> >> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz >> MemTotal: 2065856 kB >> >> When I tested vanilla, compile time is as follows. >> >> 2433.53user 187.96system 42:05.99elapsed 103%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 0maxresident)k >> 588752inputs+4503408outputs (127major+55456246minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> When I tested your patch, as follows. >> >> 2489.63user 202.41system 44:47.71elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 0maxresident)k >> 538608inputs+4503928outputs (130major+55531561minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> Regresstion almost is above 2 minutes. >> Do you think It is a trivial? > > Ooops. > this is definitly significant regression. > > >> I know your patch is good to allocate hugepage. >> But, I think many users don't need it, including embedded system and >> desktop users yet. >> >> So I suggest you made it enable optionally. > > No. > if the patch has this significant regression, > nobody turn on its option. > > We should fix that. I have been tested it. But I can't reproduce such as regression. I don't know why such regression happed at that time. Sorry for confusing. Please ignore my test result at that time. This is new test result. before 2346.24user 191.44system 42:07.28elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 458624inputs+4262728outputs (183major+52299730minor)pagefaults 0swaps after 2349.75user 195.72system 42:16.36elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 475632inputs+4265208outputs (183major+52308969minor)pagefaults 0swaps I think we can ignore some time gap. Sometime, after is faster than before. I could conclude it doesn't have any regressions in my desktop machine. Tested-by: MinChan Kim -- Kinds regards, MinChan Kim -- 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