lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: 2G memory split
Lennart Sorensen wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 09:30:58AM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>>Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>
>>Here are the patches I use for the splitting. They work well. The
>>methods employed in Red Hat ES are far better and I am surprised
>>no one has simply integrated those patches into the kernel which are 4GB
>>/ 4GB kernel/user.
>>
>>
>
>I was under the impression the 4G/4G split had some non negligable
>performance penalties compared to the other options.
>
>

It does, but from my testing, I/O performance and app performance seems
negligible. I run the highest performing app/driver
on Linux for disk and network I/O loading and ES3 and ES4 are just as
performant with 4:4 as FC2, FC3, and FC4 with
3:1.

I am now able to capture 4 x gigabit segments with 3:1 at sustained
stream to disk rates of 497 MB/S
and 1 x 10Gbe at 517 MB/S stream to disk. I see no appreciable
performance differences 3:1 vs. 4:4. Modern Xeon
processors have gotten a lot better dealing with TLB invalidation. I
suppose applications that remap
memory all over the place or that do tons of swapping would see some
penalty, and I do see some
performance degredation when user space apps start swapping, but it's
difficult to quantify how much is related
to disk I/O latency vs. TLB overhear. Most TLB flushes will cost you 150
clocks over time as the TLB reloads
itself.
Jeff

>Len Sorensen
>
>
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-10 20:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans