linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] reduce latency of direct async compaction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151203113508.GA23780@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2015 19:35:08 +0800
From:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] reduce latency of direct async compaction

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:38:50AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/03/2015 10:25 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:10:44AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> Aaron, could you try this on your testcase?
> > 
> > The test result is placed at:
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4enBkdVFScXhFM0U
> > 
> > For some reason, the patches made the performace worse. The base tree is
> > today's Linus git 25364a9e54fb8296837061bf684b76d20eec01fb, and its
> > performace is about 1000MB/s. After applying this patch series, the
> > performace drops to 720MB/s.
> > 
> > Please let me know if you need more information, thanks.
> 
> Hm, compaction stats are at 0. The code in the patches isn't even running.
> Can you provide the same data also for the base tree?

My bad, I uploaded the wrong data :-/
I uploaded again:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4UFI4TEQ3THYta0E

And I just run the base tree with trace-cmd and found that its
performace drops significantly(from 1000MB/s to 6xxMB/s), is it that
trace-cmd will impact performace a lot? Any suggestions on how to run
the test regarding trace-cmd? i.e. should I aways run usemem under
trace-cmd or only when necessary?

Thanks,
Aaron
--
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/