From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx108.postini.com [74.125.245.108]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84A266B004D for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:47:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4F0698D8.3000300@tao.ma> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:46:48 +0800 From: Tao Ma MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock References: <1325226961-4271-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> <4EFD7AE3.8020403@tao.ma> <4EFD8832.6010905@tao.ma> <4F069120.8060300@tao.ma> <4F06951E.7050605@tao.ma> <4F06959D.2070100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F06959D.2070100@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton On 01/06/2012 02:33 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (1/6/12 1:30 AM), Tao Ma wrote: >> On 01/06/2012 02:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>> 2012/1/6 Tao Ma: >>>> Hi Kosaki, >>>> On 12/30/2011 06:07 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>>>>>> Because your test program is too artificial. 20sec/100000times = >>>>>>> 200usec. And your >>>>>>> program repeat mlock and munlock the exact same address. so, yes, if >>>>>>> lru_add_drain_all() is removed, it become near no-op. but it's >>>>>>> worthless comparision. >>>>>>> none of any practical program does such strange mlock usage. >>>>>> yes, I should say it is artificial. But mlock did cause the >>>>>> problem in >>>>>> our product system and perf shows that the mlock uses the system time >>>>>> much more than others. That's the reason we created this program >>>>>> to test >>>>>> whether mlock really sucks. And we compared the result with >>>>>> rhel5(2.6.18) which runs much much faster. >>>>>> >>>>>> And from the commit log you described, we can remove >>>>>> lru_add_drain_all >>>>>> safely here, so why add it? At least removing it makes mlock much >>>>>> faster >>>>>> compared to the vanilla kernel. >>>>> >>>>> If we remove it, we lose to a test way of mlock. "Memlocked" field of >>>>> /proc/meminfo >>>>> show inaccurate number very easily. So, if 200usec is no avoidable, >>>>> I'll ack you. >>>>> But I'm not convinced yet. >>>> Do you find something new for this? >>> >>> No. >>> >>> Or more exactly, 200usec is my calculation mistake. your program call >>> mlock >>> 3 times per each iteration. so, correct cost is 66usec. >> yes, so mlock can do 15000/s, it is even slower than the whole i/o time >> for some not very fast ssd disk and I don't think it is endurable. I >> guess we should remove it, right? Or you have another other suggestion >> that I can try for it? > > read whole thread. I have read the whole thread, and you just described that the test case is artificial and there is no suggestion or patch about how to resolve it. As I have said that it is very time-consuming and with more cpu cores, the more penalty, and an i/o time for a ssd can be faster than it. So do you think 66 usec is OK for a memory operation? Thanks Tao -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ 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 S932553Ab2AFGrf (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:47:35 -0500 Received: from oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com ([69.89.21.11]:34541 "HELO oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932115Ab2AFGrJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:47:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4F0698D8.3000300@tao.ma> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:46:48 +0800 From: Tao Ma User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KOSAKI Motohiro CC: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Minchan Kim , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock References: <1325226961-4271-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> <4EFD7AE3.8020403@tao.ma> <4EFD8832.6010905@tao.ma> <4F069120.8060300@tao.ma> <4F06951E.7050605@tao.ma> <4F06959D.2070100@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F06959D.2070100@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1390:box585.bluehost.com:colyli:tao.ma} {sentby:smtp auth 182.92.247.2 authed with tm@tao.ma} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/06/2012 02:33 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > (1/6/12 1:30 AM), Tao Ma wrote: >> On 01/06/2012 02:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>> 2012/1/6 Tao Ma: >>>> Hi Kosaki, >>>> On 12/30/2011 06:07 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>>>>>> Because your test program is too artificial. 20sec/100000times = >>>>>>> 200usec. And your >>>>>>> program repeat mlock and munlock the exact same address. so, yes, if >>>>>>> lru_add_drain_all() is removed, it become near no-op. but it's >>>>>>> worthless comparision. >>>>>>> none of any practical program does such strange mlock usage. >>>>>> yes, I should say it is artificial. But mlock did cause the >>>>>> problem in >>>>>> our product system and perf shows that the mlock uses the system time >>>>>> much more than others. That's the reason we created this program >>>>>> to test >>>>>> whether mlock really sucks. And we compared the result with >>>>>> rhel5(2.6.18) which runs much much faster. >>>>>> >>>>>> And from the commit log you described, we can remove >>>>>> lru_add_drain_all >>>>>> safely here, so why add it? At least removing it makes mlock much >>>>>> faster >>>>>> compared to the vanilla kernel. >>>>> >>>>> If we remove it, we lose to a test way of mlock. "Memlocked" field of >>>>> /proc/meminfo >>>>> show inaccurate number very easily. So, if 200usec is no avoidable, >>>>> I'll ack you. >>>>> But I'm not convinced yet. >>>> Do you find something new for this? >>> >>> No. >>> >>> Or more exactly, 200usec is my calculation mistake. your program call >>> mlock >>> 3 times per each iteration. so, correct cost is 66usec. >> yes, so mlock can do 15000/s, it is even slower than the whole i/o time >> for some not very fast ssd disk and I don't think it is endurable. I >> guess we should remove it, right? Or you have another other suggestion >> that I can try for it? > > read whole thread. I have read the whole thread, and you just described that the test case is artificial and there is no suggestion or patch about how to resolve it. As I have said that it is very time-consuming and with more cpu cores, the more penalty, and an i/o time for a ssd can be faster than it. So do you think 66 usec is OK for a memory operation? Thanks Tao