Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755444AbZCEKe4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:34:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752150AbZCEKeq (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:34:46 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:39395 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751641AbZCEKeq (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:34:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:34:03 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Zhang, Yanmin" Cc: Nick Piggin , Mel Gorman , Lin Ming , Pekka Enberg , Linux Memory Management List , Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , Christoph Lameter , Johannes Weiner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/19] Cleanup and optimise the page allocator V2 Message-ID: <20090305103403.GB32407@elte.hu> References: <1235477835-14500-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1235639427.11390.11.camel@minggr> <20090226110336.GC32756@csn.ul.ie> <1235647139.16552.34.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090226112232.GE32756@csn.ul.ie> <1235724283.11610.212.camel@minggr> <20090302112122.GC21145@csn.ul.ie> <1236132307.2567.25.camel@ymzhang> <20090304090740.GA27043@wotan.suse.de> <1236218198.2567.119.camel@ymzhang> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1236218198.2567.119.camel@ymzhang> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2899 Lines: 66 * Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:07 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:05:07AM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 11:21 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > (Added Ingo as a second scheduler guy as there are queries on tg_shares_up) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 04:44:43PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 19:22 +0800, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > In that case, Lin, could I also get the profiles for UDP-U-4K please so I > > > > > > can see how time is being spent and why it might have gotten worse? > > > > > > > > > > I have done the profiling (oltp and UDP-U-4K) with and without your v2 > > > > > patches applied to 2.6.29-rc6. > > > > > I also enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO so you can translate address to source > > > > > line with addr2line. > > > > > > > > > > You can download the oprofile data and vmlinux from below link, > > > > > http://www.filefactory.com/file/af2330b/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perfect, thanks a lot for profiling this. It is a big help in figuring out > > > > how the allocator is actually being used for your workloads. > > > > > > > > The OLTP results had the following things to say about the page allocator. > > > In case we might mislead you guys, I want to clarify that here OLTP is > > > sysbench (oltp)+mysql, not the famous OLTP which needs lots of disks and big > > > memory. > > > > > > Ma Chinang, another Intel guy, does work on the famous OLTP running. > > > > OK, so my comments WRT cache sensitivity probably don't apply here, > > but probably cache hotness of pages coming out of the allocator > > might still be important for this one. > Yes. We need check it. > > > > > How many runs are you doing of these tests? > We start sysbench with different thread number, for example, 8 12 16 32 64 128 for > 4*4 tigerton, then get an average value in case there might be a scalability issue. > > As for this sysbench oltp testing, we reran it for 7 times on > tigerton this week and found the results have fluctuations. > Now we could only say there is a trend that the result with > the pathces is a little worse than the one without the > patches. Could you try "perfstat -s" perhaps and see whether any other of the metrics outside of tx/sec has less natural noise? I think a more invariant number might be the ratio of "LLC cachemisses" divided by "CPU migrations". The fluctuation in tx/sec comes from threads bouncing - but you can normalize that away by using the cachemisses/migrations ration. Perhaps. It's definitely a difficult thing to measure. Ingo -- 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/