From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, jtk@us.ibm.com, jes@sgi.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
sgrubb@redhat.com, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC][PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:38:52 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060928193243.c6766a2a.pj@sgi.com>
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 19:32 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > It is intended to be a tool for measuring the impact of task watchers
> > on fork and exit-heavy workloads.
>
> So ... you're keeping us in suspense ... what was the measured impact
> of task watcher?
Heh, sorry about that. I do have some initial kernbench numbers. I
performed 10 successive runs of kernbench after each patch on an old
8-way:
[PATCH 01/10] Task watchers v2 Task watchers v2
815.80user 113.69system 2:04.36elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
814.55user 114.25system 2:03.80elapsed 750%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
815.09user 115.11system 2:04.42elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
815.84user 114.08system 2:04.25elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
814.60user 114.28system 2:04.41elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
814.52user 113.09system 2:04.51elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
816.23user 114.42system 2:04.64elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
816.45user 113.39system 2:04.72elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
815.62user 114.74system 2:04.71elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
814.40user 112.94system 2:04.45elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark
806.39user 113.23system 2:04.30elapsed 739%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.21user 112.87system 2:03.40elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
811.69user 113.59system 2:03.59elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.16user 113.37system 2:03.53elapsed 741%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.82user 112.25system 2:03.62elapsed 741%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.45user 113.37system 2:03.34elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.35user 112.34system 2:02.96elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.35user 112.61system 2:02.96elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.19user 112.98system 2:02.91elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.54user 113.23system 2:03.80elapsed 741%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
Seems like this benchmark patch resulted in a consistent decrease in time
spent in userspace. I'm rerunning kernbench without this patch and will post the
results by Monday afternoon at the latest.
[PATCH 03/10] Task watchers v2 Register audit task watcher
802.30user 113.37system 2:02.36elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.19user 111.93system 2:03.68elapsed 739%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
800.90user 113.33system 2:03.02elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
800.08user 112.56system 2:01.95elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
801.53user 111.66system 2:02.87elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.62user 112.22system 2:02.34elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.65user 112.05system 2:03.07elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.35user 112.35system 2:03.85elapsed 740%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.20user 112.25system 2:02.80elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.46user 113.74system 2:03.75elapsed 740%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 04/10] Task watchers v2 Register semundo task watcher
799.99user 113.19system 2:02.50elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.11user 112.51system 2:03.62elapsed 739%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.19user 112.40system 2:04.19elapsed 736%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.87user 113.05system 2:02.96elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.56user 113.38system 2:02.52elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.14user 113.11system 2:02.95elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.57user 113.66system 2:02.56elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.26user 113.90system 2:03.37elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.66user 113.95system 2:03.20elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.21user 113.31system 2:04.20elapsed 739%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 05/10] Task watchers v2 Register cpuset task watcher
807.24user 112.35system 2:03.11elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.43user 112.62system 2:03.08elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.80user 113.85system 2:04.10elapsed 741%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.28user 114.07system 2:03.47elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.08user 114.10system 2:04.14elapsed 742%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.39user 113.68system 2:03.57elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.60user 113.27system 2:03.69elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.06user 113.25system 2:03.89elapsed 742%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
808.79user 112.62system 2:03.31elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.21user 113.96system 2:03.75elapsed 742%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 06/10] Task watchers v2 Register NUMA mempolicy task watcher
804.88user 113.50system 2:03.04elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.87user 114.55system 2:04.05elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
812.19user 113.81system 2:04.21elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
810.73user 114.06system 2:04.26elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
808.18user 113.48system 2:03.06elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
810.50user 112.26system 2:04.32elapsed 742%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
808.79user 113.65system 2:04.58elapsed 740%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.73user 113.55system 2:03.85elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.90user 113.25system 2:03.83elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.28user 113.75system 2:03.45elapsed 743%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 07/10] Task watchers v2 Register IRQ flag tracing task watcher
795.59user 111.36system 2:02.19elapsed 742%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
795.09user 112.89system 2:02.74elapsed 739%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
796.29user 112.05system 2:01.58elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
796.95user 112.99system 2:03.24elapsed 738%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
798.78user 111.45system 2:01.75elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
796.52user 112.00system 2:01.73elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
797.40user 112.65system 2:02.02elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
797.02user 112.55system 2:01.50elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
799.72user 111.69system 2:02.36elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
799.39user 111.93system 2:02.24elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 08/10] Task watchers v2 Register lockdep task watcher
804.79user 111.78system 2:03.03elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.81user 110.94system 2:03.13elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.87user 112.09system 2:02.96elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.32user 113.28system 2:03.35elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.45user 112.53system 2:02.89elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.69user 112.29system 2:02.90elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
801.01user 112.27system 2:02.15elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.30user 112.59system 2:02.87elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
802.19user 111.69system 2:02.66elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
801.97user 111.75system 2:02.66elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 09/10] Task watchers v2 Register process keyrings task watcher
792.91user 111.19system 2:00.91elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
793.50user 110.64system 2:02.37elapsed 738%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
795.85user 111.00system 2:01.39elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
794.46user 112.29system 2:01.17elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
794.04user 111.91system 2:01.44elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
797.07user 110.94system 2:01.55elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
796.84user 110.37system 2:01.41elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
796.13user 110.69system 2:02.44elapsed 740%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.46user 110.87system 2:02.66elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
796.70user 111.36system 2:02.80elapsed 739%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
[PATCH 10/10] Task watchers v2 Register process events connector
807.06user 112.29system 2:04.01elapsed 741%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.76user 113.42system 2:03.14elapsed 748%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.95user 111.51system 2:03.33elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
805.65user 112.95system 2:04.04elapsed 740%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
803.63user 113.79system 2:03.01elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.15user 111.49system 2:03.32elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
807.75user 112.02system 2:03.47elapsed 744%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.89user 113.48system 2:03.02elapsed 746%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
806.01user 112.71system 2:02.84elapsed 747%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
804.40user 112.63system 2:02.94elapsed 745%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-29 19:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-29 2:02 [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/10] Task watchers v2 Task watchers v2 Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:32 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:32 ` [Lse-tech] " Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 19:38 ` Matt Helsley [this message]
2006-09-29 20:13 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 20:13 ` [Lse-tech] " Paul Jackson
2006-09-30 0:01 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-30 0:01 ` [Lse-tech] " Matt Helsley
2006-09-30 0:04 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-30 0:04 ` [Lse-tech] " Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/10] Task watchers v2 Register audit task watcher Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/10] Task watchers v2 Register semundo " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/10] Task watchers v2 Register cpuset " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:31 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:31 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 7:52 ` [Lse-tech] " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 8:03 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 8:03 ` [Lse-tech] " Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/10] Task watchers v2 Register NUMA mempolicy " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/10] Task watchers v2 Register IRQ flag tracing " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/10] Task watchers v2 Register lockdep " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/10] Task watchers v2 Register process keyrings " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/10] Task watchers v2 Register process events connector Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:41 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 8:16 ` [RFC][PATCH] Task watchers and modules (WAS Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction) Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 16:22 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction Paul Menage
2006-09-29 16:22 ` Paul Menage
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=matthltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jes@sgi.com \
--cc=jtk@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.