From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <462C37B9.5090600@yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:36:09 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE References: <46247427.6000902@redhat.com> <20070420135715.f6e8e091.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462932BE.4020005@redhat.com> <20070420150618.179d31a4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4629524C.5040302@redhat.com> <20070421071202.GA355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20070421071202.GA355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , linux-mm , shak List-ID: Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:52:44PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >>It turns out that Nick's patch does not improve peak >>performance much, but it does prevent the decline when >>running with 16 threads on my quad core CPU! >> >>We _definately_ want both patches, there's a huge benefit >>in having them both. >> >>Here are the transactions/seconds for each combination: >> >> vanilla new glibc madv_free kernel madv_free + mmap_sem >>threads >> >>1 610 609 596 545 >>2 1032 1136 1196 1200 >>4 1070 1128 2014 2024 >>8 1000 1088 1665 2087 >>16 779 1073 1310 1999 > > > FYI, I have uploaded a testing glibc that uses MADV_FREE and falls back > to MADV_DONTUSE if MADV_FREE is not available, to > http://people.redhat.com/jakub/glibc/2.5.90-21.1/ Hmm, I wonder how glibc malloc stacks up to tcmalloc on this test (after the mmap_sem patch as well). I'll try running that as well! -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- 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