lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v3
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:06:12PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > This is the result from netperf running UDP_STREAM on localhost. It was
> > > > selected on the basis that it is slab-intensive and has been the subject
> > > > of previous SLAB vs SLUB comparisons with the caveat that this is not
> > > > testing between two physical hosts.
> > >
> > > I do like you are using a networking test to benchmark this. Looking at
> > > the results, my initial response is that the improvements are basically
> > > too good to be true.
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, LKP independently measured the boost to be 23% so it's expected
> > there will be different results depending on exact configuration and CPU.
>
> Yes, noticed that, nice (which was a SCTP test)
> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2016-November/005210.html
>
> It is of-cause great. It is just strange I cannot reproduce it on my
> high-end box, with manual testing. I'll try your test suite and try to
> figure out what is wrong with my setup.
>

That would be great. I had seen the boost on multiple machines and LKP
verifying it is helpful.

>
> > > Can you share how you tested this with netperf and the specific netperf
> > > parameters?
> >
> > The mmtests config file used is
> > configs/config-global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound so all details can be
> > extrapolated or reproduced from that.
>
> I didn't know of mmtests: https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests
>
> It looks nice and quite comprehensive! :-)
>

Thanks.

> > > e.g.
> > > How do you configure the send/recv sizes?
> >
> > Static range of sizes specified in the config file.
>
> I'll figure it out... reading your shell code :-)
>
> export NETPERF_BUFFER_SIZES=64,128,256,1024,2048,3312,4096,8192,16384
> https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests/blob/master/configs/config-global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound#L72
>
> I see you are using netperf 2.4.5 and setting both the send an recv
> size (-- -m and -M) which is fine.
>

Ok.

> I don't quite get why you are setting the socket recv size (with -- -s
> and -S) to such a small number, size + 256.
>

Maybe I missed something at the time I wrote that but why would it need
to be larger?

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-30 17:35    [W:0.171 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site