Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263778AbUDMV7m (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:59:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263779AbUDMV7m (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:59:42 -0400 Received: from ppp-217-133-42-200.cust-adsl.tiscali.it ([217.133.42.200]:6787 "EHLO dualathlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263778AbUDMV7h (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:59:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:59:40 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , hugh@veritas.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking objrmap under memory pressure Message-ID: <20040413215940.GD2150@dualathlon.random> References: <1130000.1081841981@[10.10.2.4]> <20040413005111.71c7716d.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040413005111.71c7716d.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49 C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1841 Lines: 42 On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 12:51:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > > > UP Athlon 2100+ with 512Mb of RAM. Rebooted clean before each test > > then did "make clean; make vmlinux; make clean". Then I timed a > > "make -j 256 vmlinux" to get some testing under mem pressure. > > > > I was trying to test the overhead of objrmap under memory pressure, > > but it seems it's actually distinctly negative overhead - rather pleasing > > really ;-) > > > > 2.6.5 > > 225.18user 30.05system 6:33.72elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > 0inputs+0outputs (37590major+2604444minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > > > 2.6.5-anon_mm > > 224.53user 26.00system 5:29.08elapsed 76%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > 0inputs+0outputs (29127major+2577211minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > A four second reduction in system time caused a one minute reduction in > runtime? Pull the other one ;) > > Average of five runs, please... at the very least the 6 seconds difference on a ~6 minutes load between anonvma and anonmm sounds smaller than the measurement error generated by disk seeks for a swapping workload, so yes, I'd like to see all 5 runs (not just the average). As for the difference between 2.6.5 and 2.6.5-anonvma, that might be the memory saved by the removal of rmap that in turn reduces the swap-I/O required to complete the load or something like that, so that one may not be a measurement error but just the benefit of anon-vma or anonmm, but for a 6 seconds difference during a swap load I'd definitely like to see the 5 runs. Thanks! - 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/