linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] mm / virtio: Provide support for unused page reporting

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]

Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:34:00 -0400
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        mst@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, vbabka@...e.cz
Cc:     yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com, david@...hat.com,
        pagupta@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com, lcapitulino@...hat.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com, osalvador@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/6] mm / virtio: Provide support for unused page
 reporting


On 10/22/19 6:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:


[...]
> Below are the results from various benchmarks. I primarily focused on two
> tests. The first is the will-it-scale/page_fault2 test, and the other is
> a modified version of will-it-scale/page_fault1 that was enabled to use
> THP. I did this as it allows for better visibility into different parts
> of the memory subsystem. The guest is running on one node of a E5-2630 v3
> CPU with 48G of RAM that I split up into two logical nodes in the guest
> in order to test with NUMA as well.
>
> Test		    page_fault1 (THP)     page_fault2
> Baseline	 1  1256106.33  +/-0.09%   482202.67  +/-0.46%
>                 16  8864441.67  +/-0.09%  3734692.00  +/-1.23%
>
> Patches applied  1  1257096.00  +/-0.06%   477436.00  +/-0.16%
>                 16  8864677.33  +/-0.06%  3800037.00  +/-0.19%
>
> Patches enabled	 1  1258420.00  +/-0.04%   480080.00  +/-0.07%
>  MADV disabled  16  8753840.00  +/-1.27%  3782764.00  +/-0.37%
>
> Patches enabled	 1  1267916.33  +/-0.08%   472075.67  +/-0.39%
>                 16  8287050.33  +/-0.67%  3774500.33  +/-0.11%

If I am not mistaken then you are only observing the number of processes (and
not the number of threads) launched over the 1st and the 16th vcpu  reported by
will-it-scale?

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh