Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:17:50 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page |
| |
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:03:51 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > That depends, if we can get the lockless page cgroup done quickly, I don't mind > > waiting, but if it is going to take longer, I would rather push these changes > > in. > The development of lockless-page_cgroup is not stalled. I'm just waiting for > my 8cpu box comes back from maintainance... > If you want to see, I'll post v3 with brief result on small (2cpu) box. > This is current status (result of unixbench.) result of 2core/1socket x86-64 system.
== [disabled] Execl Throughput 3103.3 lps (29.7 secs, 3 samples) C Compiler Throughput 1052.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5915.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1142.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 586.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 131463.3 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
[rc4mm1] Execl Throughput 3004.4 lps (29.6 secs, 3 samples) C Compiler Throughput 1017.9 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5726.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1124.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 576.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125446.5 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
[lockless] Execl Throughput 3041.0 lps (29.8 secs, 3 samples) C Compiler Throughput 1025.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5713.6 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1113.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 571.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125417.9 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) ==
From this, single-thread results are good. multi-process results are not good ;) So, I think the number of atomic ops are reduced but I have should-be-fixed contention or cache-bouncing problem yet. I'd like to fix this and check on 8 core system when it is back. Recently, I wonder within-3%-overhead is realistic goal.
Thanks, -Kame
| |