Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Oct 2008 13:17:19 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: split-lru performance mesurement part2 |
| |
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:26:54 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi > > > yup, > > I know many people want to other benchmark result too. > > I'll try to mesure other bench at next week. > > I ran another benchmark today. > I choice dbench because dbench is one of most famous and real workload like i/o benchmark. > > > % dbench client.txt 4000 > > mainline: Throughput 13.4231 MB/sec 4000 clients 4000 procs max_latency=1421988.159 ms > mmotm(*): Throughput 7.0354 MB/sec 4000 clients 4000 procs max_latency=2369213.380 ms > > (*) mmotm 2/Oct + Hugh's recently slub fix > > > Wow! > mmotm is slower than mainline largely (about half performance). > > Therefore, I mesured it on "mainline + split-lru(only)" build. > > > mainline + split-lru(only): Throughput 14.4062 MB/sec 4000 clients 4000 procs max_latency=1152231.896 ms > > > OK! > split-lru outperform mainline from viewpoint of both throughput and latency :) > > > > However, I don't understand why this regression happend.
erk.
dbench is pretty chaotic and it could be that a good change causes dbench to get worse. That's happened plenty of times in the past.
> Do you have any suggestion?
One of these:
vmscan-give-referenced-active-and-unmapped-pages-a-second-trip-around-the-lru.patch vm-dont-run-touch_buffer-during-buffercache-lookups.patch
perhaps?
| |