KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:02:44 +1000

> Nick Piggin  wrote:

>

>> On Wednesday 10 September 2008 21:03, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

>>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:44:37 +1000

>>>

>>> Nick Piggin  wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:49, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

>>>>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:20:48 -0700

>>>>>

>>>>> Balbir Singh  wrote:

>>>>>> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki  [2008-09-09

>>>>>> 21:30:12]: OK, here is approach #2, it works for me and gives me

>>>>>> really good performance (surpassing even the current memory

>>>>>> controller). I am seeing almost a 7% increase

>>>>> This number is from pre-allcation, maybe.

>>>>> We really do alloc-at-boot all page_cgroup ? This seems a big change.

>>>> It seems really nice to me -- we get the best of both worlds, less

>>>> overhead for those who don't enable the memory controller, and even

>>>> better performance for those who do.

>>> No trobles for me for allocating-all-at-boot policy.

>>> My small concern is

>>>   - wasting page_cgroup for hugepage area.

>>>   - memory hotplug

>> In those cases you still waste the struct page area too. I realise that

>> isn't a good way to justify even more wastage. But I guess it is

>> relatively low. At least, I would think the users would be more happy to

>> get a 7% performance increase for small pages! :)

>>

> I guess the increase mostly because we can completely avoid kmalloc/kfree slow path.

> 

Correct
> Balbir, how about fix our way to allocate-all-at-boot-policy ?

quoted text
> If you say yes, I think I can help you and I'll find usable part from my garbage.

> 

I am perfectly fine with it, I'll need your expertise to get the

alloc-at-boot-policy correct.
> Following is lockless+remove-page-cgroup-pointer-from-page-struct patch's result.

quoted text
>

> rc5-mm1

> ==

> Execl Throughput                           3006.5 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)

> C Compiler Throughput                      1006.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4863.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                943.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               482.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124804.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

>

> lockless

> ==

> Execl Throughput                           3035.5 lps   (29.6 secs, 3 samples)

> C Compiler Throughput                      1010.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4881.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                947.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               485.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         125437.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

>

> lockless + remove page cgroup pointer (my version).

> ==

> Execl Throughput                           3021.1 lps   (29.5 secs, 3 samples)

> C Compiler Throughput                       980.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4600.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                915.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               468.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)

> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124909.1 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

>

> Oh,yes. siginificant slow down. I'm glad to kick this patch out to trash box.

>

> Thanks,

> -Kame

> 

--

	Thanks,

	Balbir

--

unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/