[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46295F59.8000506@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:48:25 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, shak <dshaks@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lazy freeing of memory through MADV_FREE
Rik van Riel a écrit :
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:38:06 -0400
>> Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've also merged Nick's "mm: madvise avoid exclusive mmap_sem".
>>>>
>>>> - Nick's patch also will help this problem. It could be that your
>>>> patch
>>>> no longer offers a 2x speedup when combined with Nick's patch.
>>>>
>>>> It could well be that the combination of the two is even better,
>>>> but it
>>>> would be nice to firm that up a bit.
>>> I'll test that.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Well, good news.
>
> It turns out that Nick's patch does not improve peak
> performance much, but it does prevent the decline when
> running with 16 threads on my quad core CPU!
>
> We _definately_ want both patches, there's a huge benefit
> in having them both.
>
> Here are the transactions/seconds for each combination:
>
> vanilla new glibc madv_free kernel madv_free + mmap_sem
> threads
>
> 1 610 609 596 545
545 tps versus 610 tps for one thread ? It seems quite bad, no ?
Could you please find an explanation for this ?
> 2 1032 1136 1196 1200
> 4 1070 1128 2014 2024
> 8 1000 1088 1665 2087
> 16 779 1073 1310 1999
>
>
Thank you
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists