lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRSS controller v2 Test results (lmbench )
Hi, Pavel/Andrew,

I've run lmbench on RSS controller v2 with the following patches
applied

rss-fix-free-of-active-pages.patch
rss-fix-nodescan.patch
rss-implement-per-container-page-referenced.patch
rss-fix-lru-race

(NOTE: all of these were posted on lkml)

I've used three configurations for testing

1. Container mounted with the RSS controller and the tests started within
a container whose RSS is limited to 256 MB
2. Counter mounted, but no limit set
3. Counter not mounted

(1) is represented by cont256, (2) by contmnt and (3) by contnomnt respectively
in the results.

L M B E N C H 2 . 0 S U M M A R Y
------------------------------------

Basic system parameters
----------------------------------------------------
Host OS Description Mhz
--------- ------------- ----------------------- ----
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993
Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better
----------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz null null open selct sig sig fork exec sh
call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.33 4.31 5.93 9.910 0.23 1.59 152. 559. 5833
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.35 3.25 5.80 6.422 0.23 1.53 161. 562. 5937
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.29 3.18 5.14 11.3 0.23 1.37 159. 570. 5973
Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K
ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw
--------- ------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1.760 1.9800 6.6600 3.0100 6.5500 3.12000 6.84000
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.950 1.9900 6.2900 3.6400 6.6800 3.59000 14.8
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.420 2.5100 6.6400 3.7600 6.5300 3.34000 21.5
*Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP
ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn
--------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1.760 18.9 46.5 19.2 22.9 23.0 28.0 40.0
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.950 20.0 44.6 19.2 20.1 37.9 25.2 42.6
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.420 23.2 38.5 19.2 23.2 24.4 28.9 54.3
File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
--------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page
Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 17.6 15.4 62.8 29.4 1010.0 0.401 3.00000
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 20.7 16.4 68.1 31.9 3886.0 0.495 3.00000
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 21.1 16.8 69.3 31.6 4383.0 0.443 2.00000
*Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better
-----------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem
UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 382. 802. 869. 1259.5 1757.8 1184.8 898.4 1875 1497.
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 307. 850. 810. 1236.2 1758.8 1173.2 890.9 2636 1469.
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 403. 980. 875. 1236.8 2531.7 912.0 1141.7 2636 1229.
Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better
(WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
---------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses
--------- ------------- ---- ----- ------ -------- -------
cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.0260 63.8
contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.0380 64.0
contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.9410 97.4


Quick interpretation of results

1. contmnt and cont256 are comparable in performance
2. contnomnt showed degraded performance compared to contmnt

A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process
of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know
what you think of the results? Would you like to see different benchmarks/
tests/configuration results?

Any feedback, suggestions to move this work forward towards identifying
and correcting bottlenecks or to help improve it is highly appreciated.




--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
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: 2007-05-17 19:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site