From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, menage@google.com,
andi.kleen@intel.com, xemul@openvz.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4.1)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:53:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A829F1B.4060205@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090812045716.GH7176@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hi, Andrew,
>
> Does this look better, could you please replace the older patch with
> this one.
>
> 1. I did a quick compile test
> 2. Ran scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
>
>
Andi Kleen suggested I use kernbench to profile the kernel.
2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS on
Tue Aug 11 13:45:14 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-resources
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 622.588 (119.243)
User Time 4820.8 (962.286)
System Time 9807.63 (2669.55)
Percent CPU 2324 (167.236)
Context Switches 2009606 (368703)
Sleeps 1.24949e+06 (118210)
Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 770.97 (90.8685)
User Time 5068.42 (750.933)
System Time 21499.8 (12822.3)
Percent CPU 3660 (1425.28)
Context Switches 2.86467e+06 (971764)
Sleeps 1.32784e+06 (129048)
Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 757.018 (22.8371)
User Time 4958.85 (644.65)
System Time 24916.5 (11454.3)
Percent CPU 4046.93 (1279.6)
Context Switches 3.04894e+06 (826687)
Sleeps 1.26053e+06 (146073)
2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS off
Tue Aug 11 17:58:58 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-no-resources
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 280.176 (21.1131)
User Time 3558.51 (389.488)
System Time 2393.87 (142.692)
Percent CPU 2122.6 (50.5104)
Context Switches 1.20474e+06 (131112)
Sleeps 1062507 (59366.3)
Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 223.192 (42.7007)
User Time 4243.19 (967.575)
System Time 2649.57 (344.462)
Percent CPU 2845.5 (856.217)
Context Switches 1.52187e+06 (391821)
Sleeps 1.28862e+06 (274222)
Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 216.942 (45.4824)
User Time 3860.46 (966.452)
System Time 2782.17 (344.154)
Percent CPU 2862.47 (720.904)
Context Switches 1.43379e+06 (341021)
Sleeps 1184325 (269392)
2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS on + patch
Tue Aug 11 20:58:31 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-mem-patch
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 285.788 (18.577)
User Time 3483.14 (346.56)
System Time 2426.37 (132.015)
Percent CPU 2066.8 (80.3754)
Context Switches 1.16588e+06 (134701)
Sleeps 1048810 (59891.2)
Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 239.81 (14.0759)
User Time 3797.7 (422.118)
System Time 2622.74 (225.361)
Percent CPU 2480.9 (446.735)
Context Switches 1.37301e+06 (238886)
Sleeps 1195957 (161659)
Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 203.884 (8.59151)
User Time 3578.02 (482.79)
System Time 2759.9 (273.03)
Percent CPU 2663.53 (450.476)
Context Switches 1.33907e+06 (199658)
Sleeps 1119205 (172089)
... The odd thing is that the run with the patch is still less than the
run with CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS off. It was so odd that I double
checked that I actually built in RESOURCE_COUNTERS and had applied the
patch, both of which I had done.
P.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp,
kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, menage@google.com,
andi.kleen@intel.com, xemul@openvz.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4.1)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 06:53:15 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A829F1B.4060205@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090812045716.GH7176@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hi, Andrew,
>
> Does this look better, could you please replace the older patch with
> this one.
>
> 1. I did a quick compile test
> 2. Ran scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
>
>
Andi Kleen suggested I use kernbench to profile the kernel.
2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS on
Tue Aug 11 13:45:14 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-resources
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 622.588 (119.243)
User Time 4820.8 (962.286)
System Time 9807.63 (2669.55)
Percent CPU 2324 (167.236)
Context Switches 2009606 (368703)
Sleeps 1.24949e+06 (118210)
Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 770.97 (90.8685)
User Time 5068.42 (750.933)
System Time 21499.8 (12822.3)
Percent CPU 3660 (1425.28)
Context Switches 2.86467e+06 (971764)
Sleeps 1.32784e+06 (129048)
Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 757.018 (22.8371)
User Time 4958.85 (644.65)
System Time 24916.5 (11454.3)
Percent CPU 4046.93 (1279.6)
Context Switches 3.04894e+06 (826687)
Sleeps 1.26053e+06 (146073)
2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS off
Tue Aug 11 17:58:58 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-no-resources
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 280.176 (21.1131)
User Time 3558.51 (389.488)
System Time 2393.87 (142.692)
Percent CPU 2122.6 (50.5104)
Context Switches 1.20474e+06 (131112)
Sleeps 1062507 (59366.3)
Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 223.192 (42.7007)
User Time 4243.19 (967.575)
System Time 2649.57 (344.462)
Percent CPU 2845.5 (856.217)
Context Switches 1.52187e+06 (391821)
Sleeps 1.28862e+06 (274222)
Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 216.942 (45.4824)
User Time 3860.46 (966.452)
System Time 2782.17 (344.154)
Percent CPU 2862.47 (720.904)
Context Switches 1.43379e+06 (341021)
Sleeps 1184325 (269392)
2.6.31-rc5-git2 w/ CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS on + patch
Tue Aug 11 20:58:31 EDT 2009
2.6.31-rc5-git2-mem-patch
Average Half load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 285.788 (18.577)
User Time 3483.14 (346.56)
System Time 2426.37 (132.015)
Percent CPU 2066.8 (80.3754)
Context Switches 1.16588e+06 (134701)
Sleeps 1048810 (59891.2)
Average Optimal load -j 256 Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 239.81 (14.0759)
User Time 3797.7 (422.118)
System Time 2622.74 (225.361)
Percent CPU 2480.9 (446.735)
Context Switches 1.37301e+06 (238886)
Sleeps 1195957 (161659)
Average Maximal load -j Run (std deviation):
Elapsed Time 203.884 (8.59151)
User Time 3578.02 (482.79)
System Time 2759.9 (273.03)
Percent CPU 2663.53 (450.476)
Context Switches 1.33907e+06 (199658)
Sleeps 1119205 (172089)
... The odd thing is that the run with the patch is still less than the
run with CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS off. It was so odd that I double
checked that I actually built in RESOURCE_COUNTERS and had applied the
patch, both of which I had done.
P.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-12 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-11 14:44 Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4) Balbir Singh
2009-08-11 14:44 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-11 14:54 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 14:54 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 15:00 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-11 15:00 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-11 15:11 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 15:11 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 15:14 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 15:14 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 15:20 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-11 15:20 ` Andi Kleen
2009-08-11 15:21 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 15:21 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-11 16:52 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-11 16:52 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-11 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2009-08-11 23:31 ` Andrew Morton
2009-08-12 2:34 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-08-12 2:34 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-08-12 3:56 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 3:56 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 3:57 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 3:57 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 4:57 ` [PATCH] Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4.1) Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 4:57 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 10:53 ` Prarit Bhargava [this message]
2009-08-12 10:53 ` Prarit Bhargava
2009-08-12 16:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-12 16:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-12 16:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-12 16:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-08-12 17:19 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-12 17:19 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-13 1:03 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-08-13 1:03 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-08-13 3:33 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-13 3:33 ` Balbir Singh
2009-08-13 5:08 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2009-08-13 5:08 ` Daisuke Nishimura
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=4A829F1B.4060205@redhat.com \
--to=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/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.