Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763182AbYBUJjW (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:39:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753004AbYBUJiz (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:38:55 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.186]:24554 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751071AbYBUJiw (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:38:52 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tMHtL7z+J/tK/AkuHE9FLHKMsfLmn2VfT1CDZCMcD25tzBJCEOjBkWe7bXlrqZ2Wpnns8cXkNF5VVKMD+xfWIh6Wt/3mP5DAbUOSGUBmKmmwwqWds8tLRMvnosfaqsO7ntE3zLov50K3PTnD4aXA/VXZp+gqx6tOtJhOS83pAKM= Message-ID: <44c63dc40802210138s100e921ekde01b30bae13beb1@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:38:51 +0900 From: "minchan Kim" To: "KOSAKI Motohiro" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] the proposal of improve page reclaim by throttle Cc: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "Balbir Singh" , "Rik van Riel" , "Lee Schermerhorn" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20080220185648.6447.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080220181447.6444.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <44c63dc40802200149r6b03d970g2fbde74b85ad5443@mail.gmail.com> <20080220185648.6447.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4609 Lines: 166 I miss CC's. so I resend. First of all, I tried test it in embedded board. --- CPU: 200MHz(ARM926EJ-S) MEM: 32M SWAP: none KERNEL : 2.6.25-rc1 - NO SWAP before : Running with 5*40 (== 200) tasks. Time: 12.591 Command being timed: "./hackbench.arm 5 process 100" User time (seconds): 0.78 System time(seconds): 13.39 Percent of CPU this job got: 99% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0m 14.22s Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 20 max parallel reclaim tasks: 30 max consumption time of try_to_free_pages(): 789 after: Running with 5*40 (== 200) tasks. Time: 11.535 Command being timed: "./hackbench.arm 5 process 100" User time (seconds): 0.69 System time (seconds): 12.42 Percent of CPU this job got: 99% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0m 13.16s Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 18 max parallel reclaim tasks: 4 max consumption time of try_to_free_pages(): 740 - SWAP before: Running with 6*40 (== 240) tasks. Time: 121.686 Command being timed: "./hackbench.arm 6 process 100" User time (seconds): 1.89 System time (seconds): 44.95 Percent of CPU this job got: 37% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 2m 3.79s Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 230 max parallel reclaim tasks: 56 max consumption time of try_to_free_pages(): 10811 after : Running with 6*40 (== 240) tasks. Time: 67.757 Command being timed: "./hackbench.arm 6 process 100" User time (seconds): 1.56 System time (seconds): 35.41 Percent of CPU this job got: 52% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 1m 9.87s Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 16 max parallel reclaim tasks: 4 max consumption time of try_to_free_pages(): 6419 NO_SWAP before: ' OOM killer kill hackbench!!!' after : Time: 16.578 Command being timed: "./hackbench.arm 6 process 100" User time (seconds): 0.71 System time (seconds): 17.92 Percent of CPU this job got: 99% Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0m 18.69s Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 22 max parallel reclaim tasks: 4 max consumption time of try_to_free_pages(): 1785 =============================== It was a very interesting result. In embedded system, your patch improve performance a little in case without noswap(normal case in embedded system). But, more important thing is OOM occured when I made 240 process without swap device and vanilla kernel. Then, I applied your patch, it worked very well without OOM. I think that's why zone's page_scanned was six times greater than number of lru pages. At result, OOM happened. So, I think your patch also improves performance in embedded system. In case OOM didn't occur, reclaiming performance without swap device was better than one with swap device. Now, I think we need to improve reclaiming procedure in embedded system(UP and NO swap). On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi > > > > > > * max parallel reclaim tasks: > > > > * max consumption time of > > > > try_to_free_pages(): > > > > > > sorry, I inserted debug code to my patch at that time. > > > > Could you send me that debug code ? > > If you will send it to me, I will test it my environment (ARM-920T, Core2Duo). > > And I will report test result. > > attached it. > but it is very messy ;-) > > usage: > ./benchloop.sh > > sample output > ========================================================= > max reclaim 2 > Running with 120*40 (== 4800) tasks. > Time: 34.177 > 14.17user 284.38system 1:43.85elapsed 287%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (3813major+148922minor)pagefaults 0swaps > max prepare time: 4599 0 > max reclaim time: 2350 5781 > total > 8271 > max reclaimer > 4 > max overkill > 62131 > max saved overkill > 9740 > > > max reclaimer represent to max parallel reclaim tasks. > total represetnto max consumption time of try_to_free_pages(). > > Thanks > > -- Thanks, barrios -- 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/