Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 19:31:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 19:31:37 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-022-101.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.22.101]:32446 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 3 Aug 2002 19:31:36 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Rmap speedup Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 01:36:31 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References:

<3D4C4DD9.779C057B@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3D4C4DD9.779C057B@zip.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1862 Lines: 51 On Saturday 03 August 2002 23:40, Andrew Morton wrote: > Running the same test on 2.4: > > 2.4.19-pre7: > ./daniel.sh 35.12s user 65.96s system 363% cpu 27.814 total > ./daniel.sh 35.95s user 64.77s system 362% cpu 27.763 total > ./daniel.sh 34.99s user 66.46s system 364% cpu 27.861 total > > 2.4.19-pre7+rmap: > ./daniel.sh 36.20s user 106.80s system 363% cpu 39.316 total > ./daniel.sh 38.76s user 118.69s system 399% cpu 39.405 total > ./daniel.sh 35.47s user 106.90s system 364% cpu 39.062 total > > 2.4.19-pre7+rmap-13b+your patch: > ./daniel.sh 33.72s user 97.20s system 364% cpu 35.904 total > ./daniel.sh 35.18s user 94.48s system 363% cpu 35.690 total > ./daniel.sh 34.83s user 95.66s system 363% cpu 35.921 total > > The system time is pretty gross, isn't it? > > And it's disproportional to the increased number of lockings. These numbers show a 30% reduction in rmap overhead with my patch, close to what I originally reported: ((35.904 + 35.690 + 35.921) - (27.814 + 27.763 + 27.861)) / ((39.316 + 39.405 + 39.062) - (27.814 + 27.763 + 27.861)) ~= .70 But they also show that rmap overhead is around 29% on your box, even with my patch: (35.904 + 35.690 + 35.921) / (27.814 + 27.763 + 27.861) ~= 1.29 Granted, it's still way too high, and we are still in search of the 'dark cycles'. Did we do an apples-to-apples comparison of 2.4 to 2.5? Because if we did, then going by your numbers, 2.5.26 is already considerably worse than 2.4.19-pre7: ((30.260 + 29.642)/2) / ((27.814 + 27.763 + 27.861)/3) ~= 1.08 Is it fair to compare your 2.4 vs 2.5 numbers? -- Daniel - 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/