[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100903145646.15063c1d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:56:46 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: prevent background aging of anon page in no
swap system
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 14:47:03 -0700
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com> wrote:
> > We don't have any quantitative data on the effect of these excess tlb
> > flushes, which makes it difficult to decide which kernel versions
> > should receive this patch.
> >
> > Help?
>
> Andrew:
>
> We observed the degradation on 2.6.34 compared to 2.6.26 kernel. The
> workload we are running is doing 4k-random-write which runs about 3-4
> minutes. We captured the TLB shootsdowns before/after:
>
> Before the change:
> TLB: 29435 22208 37146 25332 47952 43698 43545 40297 49043 44843 46127
> 50959 47592 46233 43698 44690 TLB shootdowns [HSUM = 662798 ]
>
> After the change:
> TLB: 2340 3113 1547 1472 2944 4194 2181 1212 2607 4373 1690 1446 2310
> 3784 1744 1134 TLB shootdowns [HSUM = 38091 ]
Do you have data on how much additional CPU time (and/or wall time) was
consumed?
> Also worthy to mention, we are running in fake numa system where each
> fake node is 128M size. That makes differences on the check
> inactive_anon_is_low() since the active/inactive ratio falls to 1.
--
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