Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262432AbUJ0Xml (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:42:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262660AbUJ0XiN (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:38:13 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:29850 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262679AbUJ0UwR (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:52:17 -0400 Message-ID: <41800B12.5020405@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:54:42 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: James Cloos , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au Subject: Re: MAP_SHARED bizarrely slow References: <20041027064527.GJ1676@zax> <20041027010659.15ec7e90.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20041027010659.15ec7e90.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2382 Lines: 58 Andrew Morton wrote: > James Cloos wrote: > >>>>>>>"David" == David Gibson writes: >> >>David> http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson/maptest.tar.gz >> >>David> On a number of machines I've tested - both ppc64 and x86 - the >>David> SHARED version is consistently and significantly (50-100%) >>David> slower than the PRIVATE version. >> >>Just gave it a test on my laptop and server. Both are p3. The >>laptop is under heavier mem pressure; the server has just under >>a gig with most free/cache/buff. Laptop is still running 2.6.7 >>whereas the server is bk as of 2004-10-24. >> >>Buth took about 11 seconds for the private and around 30 seconds >>for the shared tests. >> > > > I get the exact opposite, on a P4: > > vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap > ./mm-sharemmap 10.81s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 10.855 total > vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap > ./mm-sharemmap 11.04s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 11.086 total > vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap > ./mm-privmmap 26.91s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.903 total > vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap > ./mm-privmmap 26.89s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.894 total > vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> uname -a > Linux vmm 2.6.10-rc1-mm1 #14 SMP Tue Oct 26 23:23:23 PDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux > > It's all user time so I can think of no reason apart from physical page > allocation order causing additional TLB reloads in one case. One is using > anonymous pages and the other is using shmem-backed pages, although I can't > think why that would make a difference. I think the cause was covered in another post, I'm surprised that the page overhead is reported as user time. It would have been a good hint if the big jump were in system time. Yes, I know some kernel time is charged to the user, I'm just not sure diddling the page tables should be, since it might mask the effect of vm changes, etc. That's comment not a suggestion. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/