Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:15:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:15:35 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:44990 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:15:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:15:07 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Craig Kulesa Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VM benchmarks for 2.5 (mainline & rmap patches) Message-ID: <20020620151507.GT22961@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Craig Kulesa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2579 Lines: 61 On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:00:48AM -0700, Craig Kulesa wrote: > Test 3: (non-swap) dbench 1,2,4,8 ... just because everyone else does... Wow, and apples to apples, too. On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:00:48AM -0700, Craig Kulesa wrote: > 2.5.23: > Throughput 35.1563 MB/sec (NB=43.9454 MB/sec 351.563 MBit/sec) 1 procs > Throughput 33.237 MB/sec (NB=41.5463 MB/sec 332.37 MBit/sec) 2 procs > Throughput 28.9504 MB/sec (NB=36.188 MB/sec 289.504 MBit/sec) 4 procs > Throughput 17.1113 MB/sec (NB=21.3891 MB/sec 171.113 MBit/sec) 8 procs > 2.5.23-rmap13b: > Throughput 35.1443 MB/sec (NB=43.9304 MB/sec 351.443 MBit/sec) 1 procs > Throughput 33.9223 MB/sec (NB=42.4028 MB/sec 339.223 MBit/sec) 2 procs > Throughput 25.0807 MB/sec (NB=31.3509 MB/sec 250.807 MBit/sec) 4 procs > Throughput 14.1789 MB/sec (NB=17.7236 MB/sec 141.789 MBit/sec) 8 procs There's an interesting curve here. The regime between 1 and 4 procs looks interesting, I wonder if it's really faster there and by how much, and getting a better idea of how it's falling off would also be good. On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:00:48AM -0700, Craig Kulesa wrote: > 2.5.23: > 1.710u 1.990s 0:04.76 77.7% 0+0k 0+0io 130pf+0w > 3.430u 4.050s 0:08.95 83.5% 0+0k 0+0io 153pf+0w > 6.780u 8.090s 0:19.24 77.2% 0+0k 0+0io 199pf+0w > 13.810u 21.870s 1:02.73 56.8% 0+0k 0+0io 291pf+0w > 2.5.23-rmap13b: > 1.800u 1.930s 0:04.76 78.3% 0+0k 0+0io 132pf+0w > 3.280u 4.100s 0:08.79 83.9% 0+0k 0+0io 155pf+0w > 6.990u 7.910s 0:22.09 67.4% 0+0k 0+0io 202pf+0w > 13.780u 17.830s 1:15.52 41.8% 0+0k 0+0io 293pf+0w The correlation isn't entirely clear but at first glance I suspect something is being waited on more by 2.5.23-rmap13b and throttling things. There also appears to be an increased number of page faults. I have still more suspicions. On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:00:48AM -0700, Craig Kulesa wrote: > Comments: Stock 2.5 has gotten faster since the tree began. That's > good. Rmap patches don't affect this for small numbers of > processes, but symptomatically show a small slowdown by the > time we reach 'dbench 8'. I think this needs profiling, but I'm not 100% sure of how to get an idea of what's being waited on as most profiling tools are designed for capturing things that are actually running. Cheers, Bill - 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/