From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by e28esmtp06.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m816Gu4d019138 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:46:56 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m816GphS1699972 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:46:56 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m816GpiG001466 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:46:51 +0530 Message-ID: <48BB88D5.2020109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:46:53 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page References: <20080831174756.GA25790@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20080901090102.46b75141.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48BB6160.4070904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080901130351.f005d5b6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080901141750.37101182.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080901141750.37101182.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Andrew Morton , hugh@veritas.com, menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, "nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au" List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:03:51 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> That depends, if we can get the lockless page cgroup done quickly, I don't mind >>> waiting, but if it is going to take longer, I would rather push these changes >>> in. >> The development of lockless-page_cgroup is not stalled. I'm just waiting for >> my 8cpu box comes back from maintainance... >> If you want to see, I'll post v3 with brief result on small (2cpu) box. >> > This is current status (result of unixbench.) > result of 2core/1socket x86-64 system. > > == > [disabled] > Execl Throughput 3103.3 lps (29.7 secs, 3 samples) > C Compiler Throughput 1052.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5915.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1142.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 586.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 131463.3 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) > > [rc4mm1] > Execl Throughput 3004.4 lps (29.6 secs, 3 samples) > C Compiler Throughput 1017.9 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5726.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1124.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 576.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125446.5 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) > > [lockless] > Execl Throughput 3041.0 lps (29.8 secs, 3 samples) > C Compiler Throughput 1025.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5713.6 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1113.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 571.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125417.9 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) > == > > From this, single-thread results are good. multi-process results are not good ;) > So, I think the number of atomic ops are reduced but I have should-be-fixed > contention or cache-bouncing problem yet. I'd like to fix this and check on 8 core > system when it is back. > Recently, I wonder within-3%-overhead is realistic goal. It would be nice to be under 3% and lower if possible. I know it is a hard goal to achieve, but worth striving for. I'll try and extract some numbers with the radix tree changes and see if I am adding to the overhead (in terms of time) :) -- Balbir -- 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