lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] memcg: improving scalability by reducing lock contention at charge/uncharge
    * Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> [2009-10-11 11:34:39]:

    > 2009/10/10 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    >
    > > Ying Han wrote:
    > > > Hi KAMEZAWA-san: I tested your patch set based on 2.6.32-rc3 but I don't
    > > > see
    > > > much improvement on the page-faults rate.
    > > > Here is the number I got:
    > > >
    > > > [Before]
    > > > Performance counter stats for './runpause.sh 10' (5 runs):
    > > >
    > > > 226272.271246 task-clock-msecs # 3.768 CPUs ( +-
    > > > 0.193%
    > > > )
    > > > 4424 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 14.418%
    > > > )
    > > > 25 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 23.077%
    > > > )
    > > > 80499059 page-faults # 0.356 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 2.586%
    > > > )
    > > > 499246232482 cycles # 2206.396 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 0.055%
    > > > )
    > > > 193036122022 instructions # 0.387 IPC ( +-
    > > > 0.281%
    > > > )
    > > > 76548856038 cache-references # 338.304 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 0.832%
    > > > )
    > > > 480196860 cache-misses # 2.122 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 2.741%
    > > > )
    > > >
    > > > 60.051646892 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.010% )
    > > >
    > > > [After]
    > > > Performance counter stats for './runpause.sh 10' (5 runs):
    > > >
    > > > 226491.338475 task-clock-msecs # 3.772 CPUs ( +-
    > > > 0.176%
    > > > )
    > > > 3377 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 14.713%
    > > > )
    > > > 12 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 23.077%
    > > > )
    > > > 81867014 page-faults # 0.361 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 3.201%
    > > > )
    > > > 499835798750 cycles # 2206.865 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 0.036%
    > > > )
    > > > 196685031865 instructions # 0.393 IPC ( +-
    > > > 0.286%
    > > > )
    > > > 81143829910 cache-references # 358.265 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 0.428%
    > > > )
    > > > 119362559 cache-misses # 0.527 M/sec ( +-
    > > > 5.291%
    > > > )
    > > >
    > > > 60.048917062 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.010% )
    > > >
    > > > I ran it on an 4 core machine with 16G of RAM. And I modified
    > > > the runpause.sh to fork 4 pagefault process instead of 8. I mounted
    > > cgroup
    > > > with only memory subsystem and start running the test on the root cgroup.
    > > >
    > > > I believe that we might have different running environment including the
    > > > cgroup configuration. Any suggestions?
    > > >
    > >
    > > This patch series is only for "child" cgroup. Sorry, I had to write it
    > > clearer. No effects to root.
    > >
    >
    > Ok, Thanks for making it clearer. :) So Do you mind post the cgroup+memcg
    > configuration
    > while you are running on your host?
    >
    > Thanks
    >

    Yes, root was fixed by another patchset now in mainline. Another check
    is to see if resource_counter lock shows up in /proc/lock_stats.

    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-12 13:41    [W:0.040 / U:1.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site