From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Jens Axboe'" <axboe@suse.de>,
"'Nick Piggin'" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "'Nick Piggin'" <npiggin@suse.de>,
"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@osdl.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: RE: Lockless page cache test results
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:39:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t153d$r2dpi@azsmga001.ch.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060426194623.GD9211@suse.de>
Jens Axboe wrote on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:46 PM
> > It's interesting, single threaded performance is down a little. Is
> > this significant? In some other results you showed me with 3 splices
> > each running on their own file (ie. no tree_lock contention), lockless
> > looked slightly faster on the same machine.
>
> I can do the same numbers on a 2-way em64t for comparison, that should
> get us a little better coverage.
I throw the lockless patch and Jens splice-bench into our benchmark harness,
here are the numbers I collected, on the following hardware:
(1) 2P Intel Xeon, 3.4 GHz/HT, 2M L2
(2) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/HT, 8M L3
(3) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/DC/HT, 2M L2 (per core)
Here are the graph:
(1) 2P Intel Xeon, 3.4 GHz/HT, 2M L2
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/2P-3.4Ghz.png
(2) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/HT, 8M L3
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/4P-3.0Ghz.png
(3) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/DC/HT, 2M L2 (per core)
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/4P-3.0Ghz-DCHT.png
(4) everything on one graph:
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/splice.png
- Ken
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: 'Jens Axboe' <axboe@suse.de>, 'Nick Piggin' <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 'Nick Piggin' <npiggin@suse.de>,
'Andrew Morton' <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: RE: Lockless page cache test results
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:39:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4t153d$r2dpi@azsmga001.ch.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060426194623.GD9211@suse.de>
Jens Axboe wrote on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:46 PM
> > It's interesting, single threaded performance is down a little. Is
> > this significant? In some other results you showed me with 3 splices
> > each running on their own file (ie. no tree_lock contention), lockless
> > looked slightly faster on the same machine.
>
> I can do the same numbers on a 2-way em64t for comparison, that should
> get us a little better coverage.
I throw the lockless patch and Jens splice-bench into our benchmark harness,
here are the numbers I collected, on the following hardware:
(1) 2P Intel Xeon, 3.4 GHz/HT, 2M L2
(2) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/HT, 8M L3
(3) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/DC/HT, 2M L2 (per core)
Here are the graph:
(1) 2P Intel Xeon, 3.4 GHz/HT, 2M L2
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/2P-3.4Ghz.png
(2) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/HT, 8M L3
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/4P-3.0Ghz.png
(3) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/DC/HT, 2M L2 (per core)
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/4P-3.0Ghz-DCHT.png
(4) everything on one graph:
http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/splice.png
- Ken
--
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:[~2006-04-27 5:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-26 13:53 Lockless page cache test results Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 14:43 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-26 14:43 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-26 19:46 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 19:46 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 5:39 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2006-04-27 5:39 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-27 6:07 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 6:07 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 6:15 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-27 6:15 ` Andi Kleen
2006-04-27 7:51 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-27 7:51 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-04-26 16:55 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 16:55 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 17:42 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 17:42 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 18:10 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 18:10 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 18:23 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 18:23 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 18:46 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 18:46 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 19:21 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 19:21 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 5:58 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 5:58 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-26 18:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-26 18:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-26 18:47 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 18:47 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 18:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-26 18:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-26 18:49 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 18:49 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 20:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-26 20:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-04-28 14:01 ` David Chinner
2006-04-28 14:01 ` David Chinner
2006-04-28 14:10 ` David Chinner
2006-04-28 14:10 ` David Chinner
2006-04-30 9:49 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-30 11:20 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-30 11:20 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-30 11:39 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-30 11:39 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-30 11:44 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-26 18:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-04-26 18:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-04-26 19:02 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 19:02 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-26 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-26 19:15 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 19:15 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-26 20:12 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-26 20:12 ` Andrew Morton
2006-04-27 7:45 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 7:47 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 7:47 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 7:57 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 7:57 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 8:02 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 8:02 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 9:00 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 9:00 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 13:36 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 13:36 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 8:36 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 8:36 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-28 11:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2006-04-28 11:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2006-04-28 11:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2006-04-27 5:49 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 5:49 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 15:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-27 15:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-28 4:54 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-28 4:54 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-28 5:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-28 5:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-04-27 9:35 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 5:22 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-27 5:22 ` Nick Piggin
2006-04-26 18:57 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 2:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-04-27 2:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-04-27 8:03 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 8:03 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 11:16 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 11:16 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 11:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-04-27 11:41 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2006-04-27 11:45 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-27 11:45 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-28 9:10 ` Pavel Machek
2006-04-28 9:10 ` Pavel Machek
2006-04-28 9:21 ` Jens Axboe
2006-04-28 9:21 ` Jens Axboe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-04-28 16:58 Al Boldi
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='4t153d$r2dpi@azsmga001.ch.intel.com' \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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.