From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [MMTests] Page allocator
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:21:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120629112145.GB14154@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de>
Configuration: global-dhp__pagealloc-performance
Benchmarks: kernbench vmr-aim9 vmr-stream pagealloc pft hackbench-pipes hackbench-sockets
Summary
=======
kernbench and aim9 is looking bad in a lot of areas. The page allocator
itself was in very bad shape for a long time but this has improved in 3.4.
If there are reports of page allocator intensive workloads suffering badly
in recent kernels then it may be worth backporting the barrier fix.
Benchmark notes
===============
kernbench is a similar average of five compiles of vmlinux.
vmr-aim9 is a number of micro-benchmarks. The results of this are very
sensitive to a number of factors but it can be useful early warning system.
vmr-stream is the STREAM memory benchmark and variations in it can be
indicative of problems with cache usage.
pagealloc is a page allocator microbenchmark run via SystemTap. The page
allocator is rarely a major component of a workloads time but it can
be a source of slow degrataion of overall performance.
pft is a microbenchmark for page fault rates.
hackbench is usually used for scheduler comparisons but it can sometimes
highlight problems in the page allocator as well.
===========================================================
Machine: arnold
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__pagealloc-performance/arnold/comparison.html
Arch: x86
CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads
Model: Pentium 4
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
Status: Good, except for aim9
===========================================================
kernbench
---------
2.6.32 looks quite bad which was surprising. That aside, there was a
major degrading of performance between 2.6.34 and 2.6.39 that is only
being resolved now. System CPU time was steadily getting worse for quite
some time.
pagealloc
---------
Page allocator performance was completely screwed for a long time with
massive additional latencies in the alloc path. This was fixed in 3.4
by removing barriers introduced for cpusets.
hackbench-pipes
---------------
Generally looks ok.
hackbench-sockets
-----------------
Some very poor results although it seems to have recovered recently. 2.6.39
through to 3.2 were all awful.
vmr-aim9
--------
page_test, brk_test, exec_test and fork_test all took a major pounding
between 2.6.34 and 2.6.39. It has been improving since but still is
far short of 2.6.32 levels in some cases.
vmr-stream
----------
Generally looks ok.
pft
---
Indications are we scaled better over time with a greater number of faults
being handled when spread across CPUs.
==========================================================
Machine: hydra
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-metadata-ext3/hydra/comparison.html
Arch: x86-64
CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads
Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
Status: Bad, both kernbench and aim9 need care
==========================================================
kernbench
---------
2.6.32 looked quite bad and great in 2.6.34. Between 2.6.34 and 2.6.39
it regressed again and got worse after that. System CPU time looks
generally good but 3.2 and later kernels are in bad shape in terms of
overall elapsed time.
pagealloc
---------
As with arnold, page allocator performance was completely screwed for a
long time but mostly resolved in 3.4.
hackbench-pipes
---------------
This has varied considerably over time. Currently looking good but there
was a time when high number of clients regressed considerably. Judging
from when it got fixed this might be a scheduler problem rather than a
page allocator one.
hackbench-sockets
-----------------
This is marginal at the moment and has had some serious regressions in
the past.
vmr-aim9
--------
Like with arnold, a lot of tests took a complete hammering mostly between
2.6.34 and 2.6.39 with the exception of exec_test which got screwed at
2.6.34 as well. Like arnold, it has improved in 3.4 but is still far
short of 2.6.32
vmr-stream
----------
Generally looks ok.
pft
---
Unlike arnold, the figures are worse here. It looks like we were not
handling as many faults for some time although this is better now. It
might be related to the page allocator being crap for a long time.
==========================================================
Machine: sandy
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__io-metadata-ext3/sandy/comparison.html
Arch: x86-64
CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads
Model: Intel Core i7-2600
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
Status: Bad, both kernbench and aim9 need care
==========================================================
kernbench
---------
As before, 2.6.32 looked bad. 2.6.34 was good but we got worse after that.
Elapsed time in 3.4 is screwed.
pagealloc
---------
As with the other two, page allocator performance was bad for a long time
but not quite as bad as the others. Maybe barriers are cheaper on the I7
than they are on the other machines. Still, 3.4 is looking good.
hackbench-pipes
---------------
Looks great. I suspect a lot of scheduler developers must have modern
Intel CPUs for testing with
hackbench-sockets
-----------------
Not so great. Performance dropped for a while but is looking marginally
better now.
vmr-aim9
--------
Variation of the same story. In general this is looking worse but was
not as consistently bad as the other two machines. Performance in 3.4
is a mixed bag.
vmr-stream
----------
Generally looks ok.
pft
---
Generally looking good, tests are completing faster. There were regressions
in old kernels but it has been looking better recently.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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:[~2012-06-29 11:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-20 11:32 MMTests 0.04 Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:21 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2012-06-29 11:22 ` [MMTests] Network performance Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:23 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:24 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:25 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on XFS Mel Gorman
2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:28 ` Eugeni Dodonov
2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:52 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:53 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:53 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-05 14:56 ` [MMTests] Interactivity during IO on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-10 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-10 11:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-05 14:57 ` [MMTests] Interactivity during IO on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:12 ` [MMTests] Scheduler Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:13 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-24 2:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-24 8:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-24 8:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-23 21:14 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:15 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:17 ` [MMTests] memcachetest and parallel IO on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:19 ` [MMTests] memcachetest and parallel IO on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:20 ` [MMTests] Stress high-order allocations on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:21 ` [MMTests] dbench4 async " Mel Gorman
2012-08-16 14:52 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-21 22:00 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-22 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:23 ` [MMTests] dbench4 async on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:24 ` [MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:25 ` [MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on xfs Mel Gorman
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=20120629112145.GB14154@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).