From: buhr@stat.wisc.edu (Kevin Buhr)
To: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@stanford.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.2 fails to merge mmap areas, 700% slowdown.
Date: 24 Mar 2001 15:46:51 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vbavgoyvnzo.fsf@mozart.stat.wisc.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010323201122.Y699@stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Zack Weinberg"'s message of "Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:11:22 -0800"
"Zack Weinberg" <zackw@stanford.edu> writes:
>
> Let me inject some information about what gcc's doing in each version.
Thanks... very useful information.
> 2.95.3 allocates its memory via a bunch of 'obstacks' which,
> underneath, get memory from malloc, and therefore brk(2). I'm very
> surprised to see it had ~250 vmas; it should be more like 10.
You are correct. My "maps" numbers for 2.96 and 3.0 are correct (at
least within an order of magnitude), but I must have plucked the
number for 2.95.3 out of thin air---there are only ~10 maps, as you
predict.
> In conclusion, I think that GCC's allocator still makes a good case
> for merging vmas.
Maybe. It looks like the performance drop is quite sharp as a
function of vma count. In another note to the list, I observed no
system time change (not even a half a second) using GCC 3.0 on my
gtk-- test case between 2.4.2 and 2.4.3-pre7, even though the vma
count dropped from ~200 to ~15. On the other hand, 2.96 dropped from
>3000 to ~10 and dropped from a system time of 2m13s to a system time
of 41sec (in line with the 3.0 and 2.95.3 system times).
Given your data, it'll really depend on where the performance hit is
taken. If it's taken at 4000 vmas, then it'll take a 500 meg arena
under 3.0 before the patch makes a difference. It it's taken at 1000
vmas, then we'll see it around 125 megs, and it'll really make a big
difference in some of the test cases people are talking about.
Kevin <buhr@stat.wisc.edu>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-24 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-20 18:28 Serge Orlov
2001-03-20 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-03-20 18:59 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-21 1:20 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-21 6:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2001-03-21 14:56 ` Matthias Urlichs
2001-03-21 15:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2001-03-21 15:59 ` Kurt Garloff
2001-03-21 16:45 ` Mike Galbraith
2001-03-21 20:16 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-22 9:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2001-03-22 22:19 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-23 7:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2001-03-23 21:36 ` 2.4.2-ac20 patch for process time double-counting (was: Linux 2.4.2 fails to merge mmap areas, 700% slowdown.) Kevin Buhr
2001-03-24 7:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2001-03-24 19:27 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-21 1:38 ` Linux 2.4.2 fails to merge mmap areas, 700% slowdown David S. Miller
2001-03-21 20:19 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-22 18:23 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-22 18:35 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-23 4:32 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-24 4:11 ` Zack Weinberg
2001-03-24 21:46 ` Kevin Buhr [this message]
2001-03-24 5:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-03-24 9:31 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-24 9:48 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-24 19:54 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-25 3:17 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-25 16:47 ` Jamie Lokier
[not found] ` <200103240502.VAA02673@penguin.transmeta.com>
2001-03-24 21:22 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-25 3:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-03-26 4:22 ` Kevin Buhr
2001-03-23 20:43 ` James Lewis Nance
2001-03-20 18:43 ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-03-21 2:02 Dieter Nützel
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=vbavgoyvnzo.fsf@mozart.stat.wisc.edu \
--to=buhr@stat.wisc.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zackw@stanford.edu \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®