RE: [PATCH 3/3] hugetlb: fix absurd HugePages_Rsvd

Christoph Lameter
2006-10-26T19:08:32Z

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> I used to argue dearly on how important it is to allow parallel hugetlb
> faults for scalability, but somehow lost my ground in the midst of flurry
> development. Glad to see it is coming back.

I wish someone would have cced me before allowing performance atrocities such as this.

Performance before the "fixes" (March, 2.6.16):

hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1370ms max=1746ms avg= 1554ms wall=1995ms cpu=155473ms
hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1936ms max=3706ms avg= 2610ms wall=4085ms cpu=261076ms
hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1375ms max=1988ms avg= 1600ms wall=2241ms cpu=160084ms

Performance now:

hsz=256M thr=10 pgs=3 min= 2965ms max=4091ms avg= 3471ms wall=4232ms cpu=34715ms
hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=3 min=16268ms max=43856ms avg=35927ms wall=44561ms cpu=3592702ms
hsz=256M thr=250 pgs=3 min=38348ms max=91242ms avg=74077ms wall=97071ms cpu=18519284ms

Note the performance now is only using 3 instead of 10 pages. Still factor
10 down! Meaning we are now much worse than that.

With David's latest parallelization attempt:

hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1373ms max=9604ms avg= 6311ms wall=10787ms cpu=631164ms
hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1442ms max=9115ms avg= 6386ms wall=10078ms cpu=638645ms
hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1451ms max=10788ms avg= 7430ms wall=11357ms cpu=743070ms
hsz=256M thr=100 pgs=10 min= 1439ms max=11876ms avg= 8396ms wall=13091ms cpu=839642ms

Still down by a factor of 3 to 4.