Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757689AbZFVUQU (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:16:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752048AbZFVUQK (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:16:10 -0400 Received: from mta-2.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE ([134.130.7.73]:42303 "EHLO mta-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750913AbZFVUQJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:16:09 -0400 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,271,1243807200"; d="scan'208";a="16346134" Message-id: <4A3FE689.8090603@lfbs.rwth-aachen.de> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:16:09 +0200 From: Stefan Lankes User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: Brice Goglin Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , "'Andi Kleen'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, Boris Bierbaum , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Balbir Singh , KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch References: <000c01c9d212$4c244720$e46cd560$@rwth-aachen.de> <87zldjn597.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <000001c9eac4$cb8b6690$62a233b0$@rwth-aachen.de> <20090612103251.GJ25568@one.firstfloor.org> <004001c9eb53$71991300$54cb3900$@rwth-aachen.de> <1245119977.6724.40.camel@lts-notebook> <003001c9ee8a$97e5b100$c7b11300$@rwth-aachen.de> <1245164395.15138.40.camel@lts-notebook> <000501c9ef1f$930fa330$b92ee990$@rwth-aachen.de> <1245299856.6431.30.camel@lts-notebook> <4A3F7A49.6070805@inria.fr> <1245680649.7799.54.camel@lts-notebook> <4A3FA326.8030802@inria.fr> <1245689724.7799.124.camel@lts-notebook> <4A3FBA11.8030304@inria.fr> <4A3FC68A.2030104@lfbs.rwth-aachen.de> <4A3FD721.3050606@inria.fr> In-reply-to: <4A3FD721.3050606@inria.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1846 Lines: 77 Brice Goglin wrote: > Stefan Lankes wrote: >> I am not able to reconstruct any performance drawbacks on my system. >> Could you send me your low-level benchmark? > > It's attached. As you may see, it's fairly trivial. It just does several > iterations of mbind+touch_all_pages for different power-of-two buffer > sizes. Just replace mbind with madvise in the inner loop if you want to > try with your affinit-on-next-touch. I use MPOL_NOOP instead of MPOL_PREFERRED. On my system, MPOL_NOOP is defined in as 4 (-> include/linux/mempolicy.h). By the way, do you also add Lee's "shared policy" patches? These patches add MPOL_MF_SHARED, which is specified as 3. Afterwards, you have to define MPOL_MF_LAZY as 4. I got following performance results with MPOL_NOOP: # Nb_pages Cost(ns) 2 44539 4 44695 8 53937 16 61625 32 87757 64 135070 128 233812 256 428539 512 870476 1024 1695859 2048 3280695 4096 6450328 8192 12719187 16384 25377750 32768 50431375 65536 101970000 131072 216200500 262144 511706000 I got following performance results with MPOL_PREFERRED: # Nb_pages Cost(ns) 2 50742 4 58656 8 79929 16 117171 32 195304 64 354851 128 744835 256 1354476 512 2759570 1024 5433304 2048 10173390 4096 20178453 8192 36452343 16384 71077375 32768 141738000 65536 281460250 131072 576971000 262144 1231694000 > Which kernels are you using when comparing your next-touch > implementation with Lee's patchset? > The current mmotm tree. Regards, Stefan -- 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/