From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755899AbZERQBg (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 12:01:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752349AbZERQB3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 12:01:29 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:34742 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752116AbZERQB2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 12:01:28 -0400 Message-ID: <9d894a3625cacae5733b77853b9f0a21.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090518104552.GB5156@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090515181639.GH4451@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090518191107.8a7cc990.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090518104552.GB5156@balbir.in.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 01:01:00 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC] Low overhead patches for the memory cgroup controller (v2) From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Andrew Morton" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , "menage@google.com" , "KOSAKI Motohiro" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Balbir Singh wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-05-18 > 19:11:07]: > >> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:46:39 +0530 >> Balbir Singh wrote: >> >> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-05-16 >> 02:45:03]: >> > >> > > Balbir Singh wrote: >> > > > Feature: Remove the overhead associated with the root cgroup >> > > > >> > > > From: Balbir Singh >> > > > >> > > > This patch changes the memory cgroup and removes the overhead >> associated >> > > > with LRU maintenance of all pages in the root cgroup. As a >> side-effect, we >> > > > can >> > > > no longer set a memory hard limit in the root cgroup. >> > > > >> > > > A new flag is used to track page_cgroup associated with the root >> cgroup >> > > > pages. A new flag to track whether the page has been accounted or >> not >> > > > has been added as well. >> > > > >> > > > Review comments higly appreciated >> > > > >> > > > Tests >> > > > >> > > > 1. Tested with allocate, touch and limit test case for a non-root >> cgroup >> > > > 2. For the root cgroup tested performance impact with reaim >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > +patch mmtom-08-may-2009 >> > > > AIM9 1362.93 1338.17 >> > > > Dbase 17457.75 16021.58 >> > > > New Dbase 18070.18 16518.54 >> > > > Shared 9681.85 8882.11 >> > > > Compute 16197.79 15226.13 >> > > > >> > > Hmm, at first impression, I can't convice the numbers... >> > > Just avoiding list_add/del makes programs _10%_ faster ? >> > > Could you show changes in cpu cache-miss late if you can ? >> > > (And why Aim9 goes bad ?) >> > >> > OK... I'll try but I am away on travel for 3 weeks :( you can try and >> run >> > this as well >> > >> tested aim7 with some config. >> >> CPU: Xeon 3.1GHz/4Core x2 (8cpu) >> Memory: 32G >> HDD: Usual? Scsi disk (just 1 disk) >> (try_to_free_pages() etc...will never be called.) >> >> Multiuser config. #of tasks 1100 (near to peak on my host) >> >> 10runs. >> rc6mm1 score(Jobs/min) >> 44009.1 44844.5 44691.1 43981.9 44992.6 >> 44544.9 44179.1 44283.0 44442.9 45033.8 average=44500 >> >> +patch >> 44656.8 44270.8 44706.7 44106.1 44467.6 >> 44585.3 44167.0 44756.7 44853.9 44249.4 average=44482 >> >> Dbase config. #of tasks 25 >> rc6mm1 score (jobs/min) >> 11022.7 11018.9 11037.9 11003.8 11087.5 >> 11145.2 11133.6 11068.3 11091.3 11106.6 average=11071 >> >> +patch >> 10888.0 10973.7 10913.9 11000.0 10984.9 >> 10996.2 10969.9 10921.3 10921.3 11053.1 average=10962 >> >> Hmm, 1% improvement ? >> (I think this is reasonable score of the effect of this patch) >> > > Thanks for the test, I have a 4 CPU system and I create 80 users, > larger config shows larger difference at my end. Sorry, above Dbase test was on 54 threads. I'll try 20*8=160 threads. > I think even 1% is > quite reasonable as you mentioned. If the patch looks fine, should we > ask for larger testing by Andrew? > Hmm, as you like. My interest is bugfix for swap leaking now. Because this change adds big special case, we need much tests, anyway. And please show _environment_ where benchmarks run. BTW, I wonder whetere we can have more improvements in this special case... >> Anyway, I'm afraid of difference between mine and your kernel config. >> plz enjoy your travel for now :) > > Sorry, I did not send you my .config, why do you think .config makes a > difference? I wanted to know what kind of DEBUG/TRACE config is on. and some others. > I think loading AIM makes the difference and I also made > one other change to the aim tests. I run with "sync" linked to > /bin/true and use tmpfs for temporary partition and 20*numnber of cpus > for number of users. > Is it usual method at using AIM ? (Sorry, I'm not sure). It seems to break AIM7's purpose of "measuring typical workload"... > If required, I can still send out my .config to you. > If you can, plz. (just for my interest ;) Thanks, -Kame