Re: More vm benchmarking

Andrew Morton
2004-02-25T09:47:57Z

Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
> kernel | run | -j5 | -j10 | -j15 |
> 2.6.3 1 136 886 2511
> 2.6.3 2 150 838 2465
>
> -mm2 1 136 646 1484
> -mm2 2 142 676 1265
>
> -mm3 1 135 881 1828
> -mm3 2 146 790 1844
>
> This quite clearly shows your patches hurting as I told you.

Probably. But these differences are small, relative to some differences
wrt 2.4.x

> Why did it get slower?

Dunno. Maybe the workload prefers imbalanced zone scanning.

> I assume it is because the batching patch places uneven
> pressure on normal and DMA zones.

The patch improves highmem-vs-lowmem balancing from 10:1 to 1:1. What
makes you think that it worsens ZONE_NORMAL-vs-ZONE_DMA balancing?

It's easy enough to instrument - just split pgsteal_lo into pgsteal_normal
and pgsteal_dma.