From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx118.postini.com [74.125.245.118]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7350E6B014F for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:36:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5051C44B.3000707@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:32:27 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: kmemcg benchmarks Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Mel Gorman , Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , Cgroups , Ying Han , Tejun Heo , linux-kernel , "devel@openvz.org" , Konstantin Khorenko , James Bottomley Hello everybody. I've just finished a round of benchmarks for kmemcg code. All the results can be found at: http://glommer.net/kmemcg-benchmarks-13092012/ The benchmarks were run in a 2-socket, 24-cpu machine. I haven't run all possible configurations I have envisioned, because I wanted this posted early rather than later. I've also had un-official runs in my 4-cpu i7 laptop and in a 6-way single socket AMD box. They would need to be re-run to be publishable, since they are quite raw and ad-hoc (like, I was not running perf stat always in the same way, doing some things manually, etc) But they overall point to consistent results. You can find a guide to that data in the README file in that dir, and the actual data in the results* dir. The chosen allocator for this is the SLAB. A summary and discussion of the data follows: fork intensive workload, elapsed time: =============================================== base-NotCompiled : 16.76 +- 0.87% [ + 0.00 % ] kmemcg-stack-Unset: 16.28 +- 1.10% [ - 2.86 % ] kmemcg-stack-Set : 16.96 +- 0.65% [ + 1.19 % ] kmemcg-slab-Unset : 16.71 +- 1.16% [ + 0.28 % ] kmemcg-slab-Set : 17.11 +- 0.48% [ + 2.08 % ] fork + user mem, elapsed time: =============================================== base-NotCompiled : 4.88 +- 0.35% [ + 0.00 % ] kmemcg-stack-Unset: 4.87 +- 0.36% [ - 0.34 % ] kmemcg-stack-Set : 4.85 +- 0.37% [ - 0.76 % ] kmemcg-slab-Unset : 4.84 +- 0.39% [ - 0.79 % ] kmemcg-slab-Set : 4.84 +- 0.35% [ - 0.78 % ] So in general, I don't see a big difference, with almost all measurements falling inside the 2-sigma range. >>From the fork intensive workload, two things pop out: first, kmem patches applied, but kmem not used, actually performs slightly better than no patches at all. I don't know why this is, and it might even be a glitch. But it consistently happened in my laptop and in the 6-way AMD machine. Also, we can see that in that workload, which is slab intensive, kmemcg-slab-Set performs slightly worse. Being worse is inline with expectations, but I don't consider the hit to be too big. Please let me know of any additional work you would like to see done here. -- 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