lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: MAP_SHARED bizarrely slow
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:06:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "David" == David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes:
> >
> > David> http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson/maptest.tar.gz
> >
> > David> On a number of machines I've tested - both ppc64 and x86 - the
> > David> SHARED version is consistently and significantly (50-100%)
> > David> slower than the PRIVATE version.
> >
> > Just gave it a test on my laptop and server. Both are p3. The
> > laptop is under heavier mem pressure; the server has just under
> > a gig with most free/cache/buff. Laptop is still running 2.6.7
> > whereas the server is bk as of 2004-10-24.
> >
> > Buth took about 11 seconds for the private and around 30 seconds
> > for the shared tests.
> >
>
> I get the exact opposite, on a P4:
>
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap
> ./mm-sharemmap 10.81s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 10.855 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap
> ./mm-sharemmap 11.04s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 11.086 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap
> ./mm-privmmap 26.91s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.903 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap
> ./mm-privmmap 26.89s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.894 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> uname -a
> Linux vmm 2.6.10-rc1-mm1 #14 SMP Tue Oct 26 23:23:23 PDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

How very odd. I've now understood what was happening (see other
post), but I'm not sure what could reverse the situation. Can you
download the test tarball again - I've put up an updated version which
pretouches the pages and gives some extra info. Running it both with
and without pretouch would be interesting (#if 0/1 in matmul.h to
change).

> It's all user time so I can think of no reason apart from physical page
> allocation order causing additional TLB reloads in one case. One is using
> anonymous pages and the other is using shmem-backed pages, although I can't
> think why that would make a difference.
>
>
> Let's back out the no-buddy-bitmap patches:
>
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap
> ./mm-sharemmap 12.01s user 0.06s system 99% cpu 12.087 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap
> ./mm-sharemmap 12.56s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 12.607 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap
> ./mm-privmmap 26.74s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 26.776 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap
> ./mm-privmmap 26.66s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.674 total
>
> much the same.
>
> Backing out "[PATCH] tweak the buddy allocator for better I/O merging" from
> June 24 makes no difference.
>

--
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and
| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
-
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 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans