From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Davies Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Reduce compaction scanning and lock contention Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:49:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20120921094934.GB1928@alpha.arachsys.com> References: <1348149875-29678-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20120921091333.GA32081@alpha.arachsys.com> <20120921093530.GS11266@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Shaohua Li , Rik van Riel , Avi Kivity , QEMU-devel , KVM , Linux-MM , LKML To: Mel Gorman Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120921093530.GS11266@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Mel Gorman wrote: > > I did manage to get a couple which were slightly worse, but nothing like as > > bad as before. Here are the results: > > > > # grep -F '[k]' report | head -8 > > 45.60% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c > > 11.26% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_freepages_block > > 3.21% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 2.27% ksmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcmp > > 2.02% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_idle > > 1.58% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] svm_vcpu_run > > 1.30% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > 1.09% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > > > # grep -F '[k]' report | head -8 > > 61.29% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c > > 4.52% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > 2.64% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] copy_page_c > > 1.61% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_idle > > 1.57% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 1.18% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > 1.18% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_freepages_block > > 1.11% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] svm_vcpu_run > > Were the boot times acceptable even when these slightly worse figures > were recorded? Yes, they were 10-20% slower as you might expect from the traces, rather than a factor slower. > Thank you for the detailed reporting and the testing, it's much > appreciated. I've already rebased the patches to Andrew's tree and tested > them overnight and the figures look good on my side. I'll update the > changelog and push them shortly. Great. On my side, I'm delighted that senior kernel developers such as you, Rik and Avi took our bug report seriously and helped fix it! Thank you, Richard. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932923Ab2IUJtl (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:49:41 -0400 Received: from alpha.arachsys.com ([91.203.57.7]:48028 "EHLO alpha.arachsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932742Ab2IUJtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:49:40 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:49:34 +0100 From: Richard Davies To: Mel Gorman Cc: Shaohua Li , Rik van Riel , Avi Kivity , QEMU-devel , KVM , Linux-MM , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Reduce compaction scanning and lock contention Message-ID: <20120921094934.GB1928@alpha.arachsys.com> References: <1348149875-29678-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20120921091333.GA32081@alpha.arachsys.com> <20120921093530.GS11266@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120921093530.GS11266@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mel Gorman wrote: > > I did manage to get a couple which were slightly worse, but nothing like as > > bad as before. Here are the results: > > > > # grep -F '[k]' report | head -8 > > 45.60% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c > > 11.26% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_freepages_block > > 3.21% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 2.27% ksmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcmp > > 2.02% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_idle > > 1.58% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] svm_vcpu_run > > 1.30% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > 1.09% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > > > # grep -F '[k]' report | head -8 > > 61.29% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c > > 4.52% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > 2.64% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] copy_page_c > > 1.61% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_idle > > 1.57% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 1.18% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > 1.18% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_freepages_block > > 1.11% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] svm_vcpu_run > > Were the boot times acceptable even when these slightly worse figures > were recorded? Yes, they were 10-20% slower as you might expect from the traces, rather than a factor slower. > Thank you for the detailed reporting and the testing, it's much > appreciated. I've already rebased the patches to Andrew's tree and tested > them overnight and the figures look good on my side. I'll update the > changelog and push them shortly. Great. On my side, I'm delighted that senior kernel developers such as you, Rik and Avi took our bug report seriously and helped fix it! Thank you, Richard. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49297) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEzrl-0001kW-Et for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:49:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEzrf-00027X-OY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:49:45 -0400 Received: from alpha.arachsys.com ([91.203.57.7]:56626) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEzrf-00027J-Ie for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:49:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:49:34 +0100 From: Richard Davies Message-ID: <20120921094934.GB1928@alpha.arachsys.com> References: <1348149875-29678-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20120921091333.GA32081@alpha.arachsys.com> <20120921093530.GS11266@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120921093530.GS11266@suse.de> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] Reduce compaction scanning and lock contention List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Mel Gorman Cc: KVM , QEMU-devel , LKML , Linux-MM , Avi Kivity , Shaohua Li Mel Gorman wrote: > > I did manage to get a couple which were slightly worse, but nothing like as > > bad as before. Here are the results: > > > > # grep -F '[k]' report | head -8 > > 45.60% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c > > 11.26% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_freepages_block > > 3.21% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 2.27% ksmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcmp > > 2.02% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_idle > > 1.58% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] svm_vcpu_run > > 1.30% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > 1.09% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > > > # grep -F '[k]' report | head -8 > > 61.29% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c > > 4.52% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > 2.64% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] copy_page_c > > 1.61% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_idle > > 1.57% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > > 1.18% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > 1.18% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] isolate_freepages_block > > 1.11% qemu-kvm [kernel.kallsyms] [k] svm_vcpu_run > > Were the boot times acceptable even when these slightly worse figures > were recorded? Yes, they were 10-20% slower as you might expect from the traces, rather than a factor slower. > Thank you for the detailed reporting and the testing, it's much > appreciated. I've already rebased the patches to Andrew's tree and tested > them overnight and the figures look good on my side. I'll update the > changelog and push them shortly. Great. On my side, I'm delighted that senior kernel developers such as you, Rik and Avi took our bug report seriously and helped fix it! Thank you, Richard.