From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750829AbWGCNye (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:54:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750835AbWGCNye (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:54:34 -0400 Received: from embla.aitel.hist.no ([158.38.50.22]:55953 "HELO embla.aitel.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750829AbWGCNyd (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:54:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:50:27 +0200 To: Fengguang Wu , Helge Hafting , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: New readahead - ups and downs new test Message-ID: <20060703135027.GA4440@aitel.hist.no> References: <44A12D84.5010400@aitel.hist.no> <20060702235516.GA6034@mail.ustc.edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060702235516.GA6034@mail.ustc.edu.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Helge Hafting Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 07:55:16AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Helge, > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 03:07:16PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > > I made my own little io-intensive test, that shows a case where > > performance drops. > > > > I boot the machine, and starts "debsums", a debian utility that > > checksums every file managed by debian package management. > > As soon as the machine starts swapping, I also start > > start a process that applies an mm-patch to the kernel tree, and > > times this. > > > > This patching took 1m28s with cold cache, without debsums running. > > With the 2.6.15 kernel (old readahead), and debsums running, this > > took 2m20s to complete, and 360kB in swap at the worst. > > > > With the new readahead in 2.6.17-mm3 I get 6m22s for patching, > > and 22MB in swap at the most. Runs with mm1 and mm2 were > > similiar, 5-6 minutes patching and 22MB swap. > > > > My patching clearly takes more times this way. I don't know > > if debsums improved though, it could be as simple as a fairness > > issue. Memory pressure definitely went up. > > There are a lot changes between 2.6.15 and 2.6.17-mmX. Would you use > the single 2.6.17-mm5 kernel for benchmarking? It's easy: > > - select old readahead: > echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/readahead_ratio > > - select new readahead: > echo 50 > /proc/sys/vm/readahead_ratio > > I just tried this with 2.5.17-mm5. I did in on a faster machine (opteron cpu, but still 512MB) so don't compare with my previous test which ran on a pentium-IV. Single cpu in both cases. Test procdure: 1. Reboot, log in through xdm 2. run vmstat 10 for swap monitoring 3. time debsums -s 4. As soon as the machine touches swap, launch time bzcat 2.6.15-mm5.bz2 | patch -p1 In either case, testing starts with 320MB free memory after boot, which debsums caching eats in about a minute and swapping starts. Then I start the patching, which finished before debsums. Old readahed: Max swap was 700kB, but it dropped back to 244kB after 10s and stayed there. Patch timing: real 0m37.662s user 0m5.002s sys 0m2.023s debsums timing: real 5m50.333s user 0m21.127s sys 0m14.506s New readahead: Max swap: 244kB. (On another try it jumped to 816kB and then fell back to 244kB). patch timing: real 0m40.951s user 0m5.043s sys 0m2.061s debsums timing: real 5m46.555s user 0m21.195s sys 0m13.918s Timing and memory load seems to be almost identical this time, perhaps this is a load where the type of readahead doesn't matter. Helge Hafting