[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091109173610.3d23daf2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:36:10 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
cl@...ux-foundation.org,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg : rewrite percpu countings with new
interfaces
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:37:37 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > after==
> > Performance counter stats for './runpause.sh' (5 runs):
> >
> > 474919.429670 task-clock-msecs # 7.896 CPUs ( +- 0.013% )
> > 36520440 page-faults # 0.077 M/sec ( +- 1.854% )
> > 3109834751 cache-references # 6.548 M/sec ( +- 0.276% )
> > 1053275160 cache-misses # 2.218 M/sec ( +- 0.036% )
> >
> > 60.146585280 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.019% )
> >
> > This test is affected by cpu-utilization but I think more improvements
> > will be found in bigger system.
> >
>
> Hi, Kamezawa-San,
>
> Could you please post the IPC results as well?
>
Because PREEMPT=n, no differnce between v1/v2, basically.
Here.
==
Performance counter stats for './runpause.sh' (5 runs):
475884.969949 task-clock-msecs # 7.913 CPUs ( +- 0.005% )
36592060 page-faults # 0.077 M/sec ( +- 0.301% )
3037784893 cache-references # 6.383 M/sec ( +- 0.361% ) (scaled from 99.71%)
1130761297 cache-misses # 2.376 M/sec ( +- 0.244% ) (scaled from 98.24%)
60.136803969 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.006% )
==
But this program is highly affected by cpu utilization etc...
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists