From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from digeo-nav01.digeo.com (digeo-nav01.digeo.com [192.168.1.233]) by packet.digeo.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA22316 for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D9B4AC2.4EAF1B85@digeo.com> Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:36:34 -0700 From: Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: VolanoMark Benchmark results for 2.5.26, 2.5.26 + rmap, 2.5.35 + mm1, and 2.5.38 + mm3 References: <3D948EA6.A6EFC26B@austin.ibm.com> <3D94A43B.49C65AE8@digeo.com> <3D9B402D.601E52B6@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Bill Hartner Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, mbligh@aracnet.com List-ID: Bill Hartner wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Bill Hartner wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > 2.5.35 44693 86.1 1.45 1,982,236 KB 5,393,152 KB 7,375,388 KB > > > 2.5.35mm1 39679 99.6 1.50 *2,720,600 KB *6,154,512 KB *8,875,112 KB > > > > > > > 2.5.35 was fairly wretched from the swapout point of view. > > Would be interesting to retest on 2.5.38-mm/2.5.39 sometime. > > > > Here are VolanoMark results for 2.5.38 and 2.5.38-mm3 for both > 3GB (memory pressure) and 4GB. I will repeat for 2.5.40 mm1 or > what ever is the latest and greatest on Friday. Thanks again. > SUT same as : > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=103229747000714&w=2 > > NOTE : the swap device is on ServeRAID which is probably bouncing for > the HIGHMEM pages in most if not all of the tests so results will > likely improve when bouncing is eliminated. Need to work this problem next. > > 2419 = 2.4.19 + o(1) scheduler > 2419rmap = 2.4.19 + rmap14b + o(1) scheduler > > %sys/%user = ratio of %system CPU utilization to %user CPU utilization. > > ======================================== > The results for the 3 GB mem test were : > ======================================== > > kernel msg/s %CPU %sys/%user Total swpin Total swpout Total swapio > ----------- ----- ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ > > 2.5.38 46081 90.1 1.44 1,992,608 KB 2,881,056 KB 4,873,664 KB > 2.5.38mm3 44950 99.8 1.52 did not collect io - /proc/stat changed That's probably due to the more aggressive promote-reads-before-writes tuning. The same is observable with the `qsbench' benchmark. > =============================== old data below=============================== > 2.4.19 ***** system hard hangs - requires reset. ***** > 2.4.19rmap 37767 76.9 1.46 2,274,380 KB 3,800,336 KB 6,074,716 KB > 2.5.26 51824 96.3 1.42 1,987,024 KB 2,148,100 KB 4,135,124 KB > 2.5.26rmap 46053 90.8 1.55 3,139,324 KB 3,887,368 KB 7,026,692 KB > 2.5.35 44693 86.1 1.45 1,982,236 KB 5,393,152 KB 7,375,388 KB > 2.5.35mm1 39679 99.6 1.50 *2,720,600 KB *6,154,512 KB *8,875,112 KB > > * used pgin/pgout instead of swapin/swapout since /proc/stat changed. > > 2.5.38 does not perform as well as 2.5.26 (before rmap). > 46081/51284 = 89.9 % or 10.1 % degradation. > > 2.5.38mm3 does not perform as well as 2.5.38. > 44950/46081 = 97.5 % or 2.5 % degradation. > CPU utilization is also higher - 99.8 vs 90.1. Yes, we're generally more eager to start swapout. > ======================================== > The results for the 4 GB mem test were : > ======================================== > > kernel msg/s %CPU %sys/%user Total swpin Total swpout Total swapio > ----------- ----- ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ > > 2.5.38 53084 99.9 1.41 0 0 0 > 2.5.38mm3 49933 99.9 1.47 0 0 0 > > =============================== old data below=============================== > 2.4.19 55386 99.8 1.40 0 0 0 > 2.4.19rmap 52330 99.5 1.43 0 2,363,388 KB 2,363,388 KB > 2.5.26 55446 99.4 1.40 0 0 0 > 2.5.35 52845 99.9 1.38 0 0 0 > 2.5.35mm1 52755 99.9 1.42 0 0 0 > > 2.5.38 does not perform as well as 2.5.26. > 53084/55426 = 95.8 % or 4.2 % degradation. > > 2.5.38mm3 does not perform as well as 2.5.38. > 49933/53084 = 94.1 % or 5.9 % degradation. Higher ratio of system CPU. Davem says that the loopback network device is currently doing an extra copy, which will go away soon. (That was news to me). I wonder if volanomark does tcp to localhost? `ifconfig lo' will tell us. -- 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/