[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bf4a40fb-0a24-bfcb-124f-15e5e2f87b67@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 19:01:58 +0300
From: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm/memcontrol.c: Reduce reclaim retries in
mem_cgroup_resize_limit()
On 02/22/2018 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 22-02-18 18:38:11, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> with the patch:
>>>> best: 1.04 secs, 9.7G reclaimed
>>>> worst: 2.2 secs, 16G reclaimed.
>>>>
>>>> without:
>>>> best: 5.4 sec, 35G reclaimed
>>>> worst: 22.2 sec, 136G reclaimed
>>>
>>> Could you also compare how much memory do we reclaim with/without the
>>> patch?
>>>
>>
>> I did and I wrote the results. Please look again.
>
> I must have forgotten. Care to point me to the message-id?
The results are quoted right above, literally above. Raise your eyes up. message-id 0927bcab-7e2c-c6f9-d16a-315ac436ba98@...tuozzo.com
I write it here again:
with the patch:
best: 9.7G reclaimed
worst: 16G reclaimed
without:
best: 35G reclaimed
worst: 136G reclaimed
Or you asking about something else? If so, I don't understand what you want.
> 20180119132544.19569-2-aryabinin@...tuozzo.com doesn't contain this
> information and a quick glance over the follow up thread doesn't have
> anything as well. Ideally, this should be in the patch changelog, btw.
>
Well, I did these measurements only today and I don't have time machine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists