From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 00/29] THP-enabled tmpfs/shmem using compound pages To: Jerome Marchand , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton References: <1460766240-84565-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <571565F0.9070203@linaro.org> <571641AC.1050801@redhat.com> Cc: Dave Hansen , Vlastimil Babka , Christoph Lameter , Naoya Horiguchi , Sasha Levin , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , Ning Qu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org From: "Shi, Yang" Message-ID: <571658CB.9080205@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:11:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <571641AC.1050801@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 4/19/2016 7:33 AM, Jerome Marchand wrote: > On 04/19/2016 12:55 AM, Shi, Yang wrote: >> 2. I ran my THP test (generated a program with 4MB text section) on both >> x86-64 and ARM64 with yours and Hugh's patches (linux-next tree), I got >> the program execution time reduced by ~12% on x86-64, it looks very >> impressive. >> >> But, on ARM64, there is just ~3% change, and sometimes huge tmpfs may >> show even worse data than non-hugepage. >> >> Both yours and Hugh's patches has the same behavior. >> >> Any idea? > > Just a shot in the dark, but what page size do you use? If you use 4k > pages, then hugepage size should be the same as on x86 and a similar I do use 4K pages for both x86-64 and ARM64 in my testing. Thanks, Yang > behavior could be expected. Otherwise, hugepages would be too big to be > taken advantage of by your test program. > > Jerome > -- 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