[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091218080631.GA1374@ucw.cz>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:06:31 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, akpm@...l.org,
jeremy@...p.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
tmem-devel@....oracle.com, kurt.hackel@...cle.com,
Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
dave.mccracken@...cle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rusty@...inet15.oracle.com, sunil.mushran@...cle.com,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, chris.mason@...cle.com
Subject: Re: Tmem [PATCH 0/5] (Take 3): Transcendent memory
Hi!
> Performance is difficult to quantify because some benchmarks respond
> very favorably to increases in memory and tmem may do quite well on
> those, depending on how much tmem is available which may vary widely
> and dynamically, depending on conditions completely outside of the
> system being measured. Ideas on how best to provide useful metrics
> would be appreciated.
So... take 1GB system, run your favourite benchmark. Then reserve
512MB for tmem, rerun your benchmark, then run the system with
512MB/512MB swap, rerun the benchmark?
Tune the sizes so that first to last run differ by 100% or so, and see
how much first and second differs? If it is in 1% range, you are
probably doing good...?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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