linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] reduce latency of direct async compaction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:52:56 +0800
From:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] reduce latency of direct async compaction

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:35:08PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:38:50AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 12/03/2015 10:25 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:10:44AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > >> Aaron, could you try this on your testcase?
> > > 
> > > The test result is placed at:
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4enBkdVFScXhFM0U
> > > 
> > > For some reason, the patches made the performace worse. The base tree is
> > > today's Linus git 25364a9e54fb8296837061bf684b76d20eec01fb, and its
> > > performace is about 1000MB/s. After applying this patch series, the
> > > performace drops to 720MB/s.
> > > 
> > > Please let me know if you need more information, thanks.
> > 
> > Hm, compaction stats are at 0. The code in the patches isn't even running.
> > Can you provide the same data also for the base tree?
> 
> My bad, I uploaded the wrong data :-/
> I uploaded again:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4UFI4TEQ3THYta0E
> 
> And I just run the base tree with trace-cmd and found that its
> performace drops significantly(from 1000MB/s to 6xxMB/s), is it that
> trace-cmd will impact performace a lot? Any suggestions on how to run
> the test regarding trace-cmd? i.e. should I aways run usemem under
> trace-cmd or only when necessary?

I just run the test with the base tree and with this patch series
applied(head), I didn't use trace-cmd this time.

The throughput for base tree is 963MB/s while the head is 815MB/s, I
have attached pagetypeinfo/proc-vmstat/perf-profile for them.

Download attachment "base.tar" of type "application/x-tar" (163840 bytes)

Download attachment "head.tar" of type "application/x-tar" (184320 bytes)