[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1205031454400.1631@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com>
cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)
On Thu, 3 May 2012, David Rientjes wrote:
> Is this a claim that memory-intensive workloads will have the exact same
> performance with and without memcg enabled?
I've just run specjbb2005 three times on my system both with and without
cgroup_disable=memory on the command line and it is consistently 1% faster
without memcg. If I add XX:+UseLargePages to the command line to use
hugepages it's even larger. So why must I incur this performance
degradation if I simply want to control who may mmap hugepages out of the
global pool?
The functionality to control this is pretty important if I want to ensure
applications aren't able to infringe on the preallocated hugepages of a
higher priority application for business goals.
--
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