[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1271427056.7196.163.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:10:56 +0100
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: vmalloc performance
Hi,
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 01:51 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
[snip]
> Thanks for the explanation. It seems to be real issue.
>
> I tested to see effect with flush during rb tree search.
>
> Before I applied your patch, the time is 50300661 us.
> After your patch, 11569357 us.
> After my debug patch, 6104875 us.
>
> I tested it as changing threshold value.
>
> threshold time
> 1000 13892809
> 500 9062110
> 200 6714172
> 100 6104875
> 50 6758316
>
My results show:
threshold time
100000 139309948
1000 13555878
500 10069801
200 7813667
100 18523172
50 18546256
> And perf shows smp_call_function is very low percentage.
>
> In my cases, 100 is best.
>
Looks like 200 for me.
I think you meant to use the non _minmax version of proc_dointvec too?
Although it doesn't make any difference for this basic test.
The original reporter also has 8 cpu cores I've discovered. In his case
divided by 4 cpus where as mine are divided by 2 cpus, but I think that
makes no real difference in this case.
I'll try and get some further test results ready shortly. Many thanks
for all your efforts in tracking this down,
Steve.
--
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