[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.4.23aa2 (bugfixes and important VM improvements for the high end)
    >> > 4:4 makes no sense at all, the only advantage of 4:4 w.r.t. 2:2 is that
    >> > they can map 2.7G per task of shm instead of 1.7G per task of shm.
    > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 02:03:07PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
    >> Eh? You have a 2GB difference of user address space, and a 1GB difference
    >> of shm size. You lost a GB somewhere ;-) Depending on whether you move
    >> TASK_UNMAPPPED_BASE or not, it you might mean 2.7 vs 0.7 or at a pinch
    >> 3.5 vs 1.5, I'm not sure.
    > the numbers I wrote are right. No shm size is lost. The shm size is >20G,
    > it doesn't fit in 4g of address space of 4:4 like it doesn't fit in 3G
    > of address space of 3:1 like it doesn't fit in 2:2.

    OK, I understand you can window it, but I still don't get where your
    figures of 2.7GB/task vs 1.7GB per task come from?

    > I think nobody tested 2:2 seriously on 64G boxes yet, I'm simply asking
    > for that.
    > And I agree with you using 64G with 3:1 is not feasible for application
    > like databases, it's feasible for other apps for example needing big
    > caches (if you can manage to boot the machine ;) it's not a matter of
    > opinion, it's a matter fact, for a generic misc load the high limit of
    > 3:1 is mem=48G, which is not too bad.

    48GB is sailing damned close to the wind. The problem I've had before is
    distros saying "we support X GB of RAM", but it only works for some
    workloads, and falls over on others. Oddly enough, that tends to upset
    the customers quite a bit ;-) I'd agree with what you say - for a generic
    misc load, it might work ... but I'd hate a customer to hear that and
    misinterpret it.

    > What changes between 3:1 and 2:2 is the "view" on the 20G shm file, not
    > the size of the shm. you can do less simultaneous mmap with a 1.7G view
    > instead of a 2.7G view. the nonlinear vma will be 1.7G in size with 2:2,
    > instead of 2.7G in size with 3:1 or 4:4 (300M are as usual left for some
    > hole, the binary itself and the stack)

    Why is it 2.7GB with both 3:1 and 4:4 ... surely it can get bigger on
    4:4 ???

    > the only chance it's faster is if you never use syscalls and you drive
    > all interrupts to other cpus and you have an advantage by mapping >2G in
    > the same address space.

    I think that's the key - when you need to map a LOT of data into the
    address space. Unfortunately, I think that's the kind of app that the
    large machines run.

    > I've some doubt 4:4 runs faster anywhere. I could be wrong though.

    There's only one real way to tell ;-)

    >> If you send me a *simple* simulation test, I'll gladly run it for you ;-)
    >> But I'm not going to go fiddle with Oracle, and thousands of disks ;-)
    > :)
    > thanks for the offer! ;) I would prefer a real life db bench since
    > syscalls and irqs are an important part of the load that hurts 4:4 most,
    > it doesn't need to be necessairly oracle though. And if it's a cpu with
    > big tlb cache like p4 it would be prefereable. maybe we should talk
    > about this offline.

    I've been talking with others here about running a database workload
    test, but it'll probably be on a machine with only 8GB or so. I still
    think that's enough to show us something interesting.

    > agreed. It's just lower prio at the moment since anon memory doesn't
    > tend to be that much shared, so the overhead is minimal.

    Yup, that's what my analysis found, most of it falls under the pte_direct
    optimisation. The only problem seems to be that at fork/exec time we
    set up the chain, then tear it down again, which is ugly. That's the bit
    where I like Hugh's stuff.

    >> I don't have time at the moment to go write it at the moment, but I
    >> can certainly run it on large end hardware if that helps.
    > thanks, we should write it someday. that testcase isn't the one suitable
    > for the 4:4 vs 2:2 thing though, for that a real life thing is needed
    > since irqs, syscalls (and possibly page faults but not that many with a
    > db) are fundamental parts of the load. we could write a smarter
    > testcase as well, but I guess using a db is simpler, evaluating 2:2 vs
    > 4:4 is more a do-once thing, results won't change over time.

    OK, I'll see what people here can do about that ;-)


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.027 / U:0.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site