linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/9] remove page_cgroup pointer (with some enhancements)

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:	Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:35:40 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "xemul@...nvz.org" <xemul@...nvz.org>,
	"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/9]  remove page_cgroup pointer (with some
 enhancements)

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:08:55 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Peformance comparison is below.
> ==
> rc5-mm1
> ==
> Execl Throughput                           3006.5 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
> C Compiler Throughput                      1006.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4863.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                943.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               482.7 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124804.9 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> 
> After this series
> ==
> Execl Throughput                           3003.3 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
> C Compiler Throughput                      1008.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4580.6 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                913.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               569.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         124918.7 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> 
> Hmm..no loss ? But maybe I should find what I can do to improve this.
> 
This is the latest number.
 - added "Used" flag as Balbir's one.
 - rewrote and optimize uncharge() path.
 - move bit_spinlock() (lock_page_cgroup()) to header file as inilned function.

Execl Throughput                           3064.9 lps   (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
C Compiler Throughput                       998.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (1 concurrent)               4717.0 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent)                928.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Shell Scripts (16 concurrent)               474.3 lpm   (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places         127184.0 lpm   (30.0 secs, 3 samples)

Hmm..it seems something bad? in concurrent shell test.
(But this -mm's shell test is not trustable. 15% slowdown from rc4's.)

I tries to avoid mz->lru_lock (it was in my set), also. But I find I can't.
I postpone that. (maybe remove mz->lru_lock and depends on zone->lock is choice.
This make memcg's lru to be synchronized with global lru.)

Unfortunately, I'll be offline for 2 or 3 days. I'm sorry if I can't make
quick response.

Thanks,
-Kame




--
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/