[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130910074748.GA2971@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:47:48 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
Cc: Robin Holt <robinmholt@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: [benchmark] THP performance testcase
( Changed the subject line to make it stand out better on lkml. Mail with
link & results quoted below. )
* Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com> wrote:
> [...] Here's a pointer to the test I wrote:
>
> ftp://shell.sgi.com/collect/appsx_test/pthread_test.tar.gz
>
> Everything to compile the test should be there (just run make in the
> thp_pthread directory). To run the test use something like:
>
> time ./thp_pthread -C 0 -m 0 -c <max_cores> -b <memory>
>
> I ran:
>
> time ./thp_pthread -C 0 -m 0 -c 128 -b 128g
>
> On a 256 core machine, with ~500gb of memory and got these results:
>
> THP off:
>
> real 0m57.797s
> user 46m22.156s
> sys 6m14.220s
>
> THP on:
>
> real 1m36.906s
> user 0m2.612s
> sys 143m13.764s
>
> I snagged some code from another test we use, so I can't vouch for the
> usefulness/accuracy of all the output (actually, I know some of it is
> wrong). I've mainly been looking at the total run time.
>
> Don't want to bloat this e-mail up with too many test results, but I
> found this one really interesting. Same machine, using all the cores,
> with the same amount of memory. This means that each cpu is actually
> doing *less* work, since the chunk we reserve gets divided up evenly
> amongst the cpus:
>
> time ./thp_pthread -C 0 -m 0 -c 256 -b 128g
>
> THP off:
>
> real 1m1.028s
> user 104m58.448s
> sys 8m52.908s
>
> THP on:
>
> real 2m26.072s
> user 60m39.404s
> sys 337m10.072s
>
> Seems that the test scales really well in the THP off case, but, once
> again, with THP on, we really see the performance start to degrade.
>
> I'm planning to start investigating possible ways to split up THPs, if
> we detect that that majority of the references to a THP are off-node.
> I've heard some horror stories about migrating pages in this situation
> (i.e., process switches cpu and then all the pages follow it), but I
> think we might be able to get some better results if we can cleverly
> determine an appropriate time to split up pages. I've heard a bit of
> talk about doing something similar to this from a few people, but
> haven't seen any code/test results. If anybody has any input on that
> topic, it would be greatly appreciated.
--
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