lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Locking comment on shrink_caches()
Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> In article <20010925.132816.52117370.davem@redhat.com> David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:24:21 -0300 (BRST)
> >
> > Or were you measuring loads which are mostly read-only ?
>
> > When Kanoj Sarcar was back at SGI testing 32 processor Origin
> > MIPS systems, pagecache_lock was at the top.
>
> John Hawkes from SGI had published some AIM7 numbers that showed
> pagecache_lock to be a bottleneck above 4 processors. At 32 processors,
> half the CPU cycles were spent on waiting for pagecache_lock. The
> thread is at -
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lse-tech&m=98459051027582&w=2
>

That's NUMA hardware. The per-hashqueue locking change made
a big improvement on that hardware. But when it was used on
Intel hardware it made no measurable difference at all.

Sorry, but the patch adds compexity and unless a significant
throughput benefit can be demonstrated on less exotic hardware,
why use it?

Here are kumon's test results from March, with and without
the hashed lock patch:



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Lse-tech] AIM7 scaling, pagecache_lock, multiqueue scheduler]
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:03:55 +0900
From: kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Reply-To: kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
To: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>
CC: kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp, ahirai@flab.fujitsu.co.jp,John Hawkes <hawkes@engr.sgi.com>,kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
References: <3AB032B3.87940521@uow.edu.au>,<3AB0089B.CF3496D2@uow.edu.au><200103150234.LAA28075@asami.proc><3AB032B3.87940521@uow.edu.au>

OK, the followings are a result of our brief measurement with WebBench
(mindcraft type) of 2.4.2 and 2.4.2+pcl .

Workload: WebBench 3.0 (static get)
Machine: Profusion 8way 550MHz/1MB cache 1GB mem.
Server: Apache 1.3.9-8 (w/ SINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT)
obtained from RedHat.
Clients: 32 clients each has 2 requesting threads.

The following number is Request per sec.

242 242+pcl ratio
-------------------------------------
1SMP 1,603 1,584 0.99
2(1+1)SMP 2,443 2,437 1.00
4(1+3)SMP 4,420 4,426 1.00
8(4+4)SMP 5,381 5,400 1.00

#No idle time observed in the 1 to 4 SMP runs.
#Only 8 SMP cases shows cpu-idle time, but it is about 2.1-2.8% of the
#total CPU time.

Note: The load of two buses of Profusion system isn't balance, because
the number of CPUs on each bus is unbalance.

Summary:
From the above brief test, (+pcl) patch doens't show the measurable
performance gain.

-
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.081 / U:0.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site