From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reducing fragmentation using zones
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:42:19 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0601200011190.15823@skynet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43CFE77B.3090708@austin.ibm.com>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Joel Schopp wrote:
> > Benchmark comparison between -mm+NoOOM tree and with the new zones
>
> I know you had also previously posted a very simplified version of your real
> fragmentation avoidance patches. I was curious if you could repost those with
> the other benchmarks for a 3 way comparison. The simplified version got rid
> of a lot of the complexity people were complaining about and in my mind still
> seems like preferable direction.
>
To satisfy this request, I did a quick rebase of the list-based approach
against 2.6.16-rc1-mm1 to have a comparable set of benchmarks. I will post
the patches in the morning after a re-read.
The results here are in three sets
Set 1: -mm3 Vs list-based anti-frag
Set 2: -mm3 Vs zone-based anti-frag
Set 3: list-based anti-frag Vs zone-based anti-frag
In the headers, list-based is called mbuddy-v22. Zone based is called
zbuddy-v3 (versions 1 and 2 were only posted to lhms-devel)
>>> BEGIN SET 1: -clean Vs mbuddy-v22 <<<
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22
Time taken to extract kernel: 14 15
Time taken to build kernel: 741 741
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22
1 creat-clo 12273.11 12239.80 -33.31 -0.27% File Creations and Closes/second
2 page_test 131762.75 134311.90 2549.15 1.93% System Allocations & Pages/second
3 brk_test 586206.90 597167.14 10960.24 1.87% System Memory Allocations/second
4 jmp_test 4375520.75 4373004.50 -2516.25 -0.06% Non-local gotos/second
5 signal_test 79436.76 77307.56 -2129.20 -2.68% Signal Traps/second
6 exec_test 62.90 62.93 0.03 0.05% Program Loads/second
7 fork_test 1211.92 1218.13 6.21 0.51% Task Creations/second
8 link_test 4332.30 4324.56 -7.74 -0.18% Link/Unlink Pairs/second
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 60 86
Failed allocs 215 189
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 5 0
HighMem zone allocs 54 85
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 0
% Success 21 31
HighAlloc Under Load Test Results Pass 2
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 101 103
Failed allocs 174 172
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 5 0
HighMem zone allocs 95 102
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 0
% Success 36 37
HighAlloc Test Results while Rested
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 141 242
Failed allocs 134 33
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 16 83
HighMem zone allocs 124 158
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 0
% Success 51 88
>>> END SET 1: -clean Vs mbuddy-v22 <<<
>>> BEGIN SET 2: -clean Vs zbuddy-v3 <<<
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Time taken to extract kernel: 14 14
Time taken to build kernel: 741 738
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
1 creat-clo 12273.11 12235.72 -37.39 -0.30% File Creations and Closes/second
2 page_test 131762.75 132946.18 1183.43 0.90% System Allocations & Pages/second
3 brk_test 586206.90 603298.90 17092.00 2.92% System Memory Allocations/second
4 jmp_test 4375520.75 4376557.81 1037.06 0.02% Non-local gotos/second
5 signal_test 79436.76 81086.49 1649.73 2.08% Signal Traps/second
6 exec_test 62.90 62.81 -0.09 -0.14% Program Loads/second
7 fork_test 1211.92 1212.52 0.60 0.05% Task Creations/second
8 link_test 4332.30 4346.60 14.30 0.33% Link/Unlink Pairs/second
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 60 106
Failed allocs 215 169
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 5 8
HighMem zone allocs 54 0
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 97
% Success 21 38
HighAlloc Under Load Test Results Pass 2
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 101 154
Failed allocs 174 121
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 5 8
HighMem zone allocs 95 0
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 145
% Success 36 56
HighAlloc Test Results while Rested
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-clean 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 141 212
Failed allocs 134 63
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 16 8
HighMem zone allocs 124 0
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 203
% Success 51 77
>>> BEGIN SET 2: -clean Vs zbuddy-v3 <<<
>>> BEGIN SET 3: -mbuddy-v22 Vs zbuddy-v3 <<<
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Time taken to extract kernel: 15 14
Time taken to build kernel: 741 738
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
1 creat-clo 12239.80 12235.72 -4.08 -0.03% File Creations and Closes/second
2 page_test 134311.90 132946.18 -1365.72 -1.02% System Allocations & Pages/second
3 brk_test 597167.14 603298.90 6131.76 1.03% System Memory Allocations/second
4 jmp_test 4373004.50 4376557.81 3553.31 0.08% Non-local gotos/second
5 signal_test 77307.56 81086.49 3778.93 4.89% Signal Traps/second
6 exec_test 62.93 62.81 -0.12 -0.19% Program Loads/second
7 fork_test 1218.13 1212.52 -5.61 -0.46% Task Creations/second
8 link_test 4324.56 4346.60 22.04 0.51% Link/Unlink Pairs/second
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 86 106
Failed allocs 189 169
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 0 8
HighMem zone allocs 85 0
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 97
% Success 31 38
HighAlloc Under Load Test Results Pass 2
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 103 154
Failed allocs 172 121
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 0 8
HighMem zone allocs 102 0
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 145
% Success 37 56
HighAlloc Test Results while Rested
2.6.16-rc1-mm1-mbuddy-v22 2.6.16-rc1-mm1-zbuddy-v3
Order 10 10
Allocation type HighMem HighMem
Attempted allocations 275 275
Success allocs 242 212
Failed allocs 33 63
DMA zone allocs 1 1
Normal zone allocs 83 8
HighMem zone allocs 158 0
EasyRclm zone allocs 0 203
% Success 88 77
>>> END SET 3: -mbuddy-v22 Vs zbuddy-v3 <<<
So, in terms of performance on this set of tests, both approachs perform
roughly the same as the stock kernel in terms of absolute performance. In
terms of high-order allocations, zone-based appears to do better under
load. However, if you look at the zones that are used, you will see that
zone-based appears to do as well as list-based *only* because it has the
EASYRCLM zone to play with. list-based was way better at keeping the
normal zone defragmented as well as highmem which is especially obvious
when tested at rest. list-based was able to allocate 83 huge pages from
ZONE_NORMAL at rest while zone-based only managed 8.
Secondly, zone-based requires careful configuration to be successful. If
booted with kernelcore=896MB for example, it only performs slightly better
than the standard kernel. If booted with kernelcore=1024MB, it tends to
perform slightly worse (more zone fallbacks I guess) and still only
manages slighly better satisfaction of high order pages.
On the flip side, zone-based code changes are easier to understand than
the list-based ones (at least in terms of volume of code changes). The
zone-based gives guarantees on what will happen in the future while
list-based is best-effort.
In terms of fragmentation, I still think that list-based is better overall
without configuration. The results above also represent the best possible
configuration with zone-based versus no configuration at all against
list-based. In an environment with changing workloads a constant reality,
I bet that list-based would win overall.
> Zone based approaches are runtime inflexible and require boot time tuning by
> the sysadmin. There are lots of workloads that "reasonable" defaults for a
> zone based approach would cause the system to regress terribly.
>
> -Joel
>
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-20 0:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-19 19:08 Mel Gorman
2006-01-19 19:08 ` [PATCH 1/5] Add __GFP_EASYRCLM flag and update callers Mel Gorman
2006-01-19 19:08 ` [PATCH 2/5] Create the ZONE_EASYRCLM zone Mel Gorman
2006-01-19 19:09 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86 - Specify amount of kernel memory at boot time Mel Gorman
2006-01-19 19:09 ` [PATCH 4/5] ppc64 " Mel Gorman
2006-01-19 19:09 ` [PATCH 5/5] ForTesting - Prevent OOM killer firing for high-order allocations Mel Gorman
2006-01-19 19:24 ` [PATCH 0/5] Reducing fragmentation using zones Joel Schopp
2006-01-20 0:13 ` [Lhms-devel] " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-01-20 1:09 ` Mel Gorman
2006-01-20 1:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-01-20 9:44 ` Mel Gorman
2006-01-20 10:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-01-20 14:53 ` Mel Gorman
2006-01-20 18:10 ` Kamezawa Hiroyuki
2006-01-20 12:08 ` Yasunori Goto
2006-01-20 12:25 ` Mel Gorman
2006-01-20 13:22 ` Yasunori Goto
2006-01-20 0:42 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2006-01-20 1:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-01-20 12:03 ` Mel Gorman
2006-01-20 13:28 ` [Lhms-devel] " Yasunori Goto
2006-01-20 14:02 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0601200011190.15823@skynet \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox