From: Daniel Lowengrub <lowdanie@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.28 1/2] memory: improve find_vma
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:10:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c5a844a0901230310h7aa1ec83h60817de2b36212d8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090122231358.GA27033@elte.hu>
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Daniel Lowengrub <lowdanie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Simple syscall: 0.7419 / 0.4244 microseconds
>> Simple read: 1.2071 / 0.7270 microseconds
>
>there must be a significant measurement mistake here: none of your patches
>affect the 'simple syscall' path, nor the sys_read() path.
>
> Ingo
I ran the tests again, this time I ran them twice on each system and
calculated the average, the differences between results on the same os
were very small - I guess this means that the results were accurate.
I also made sure that no other programs were running during the tests.
Here're the new results using the same format of
test : standard kernel / kernel after patch
Simple syscall: 0.26080 / 0.24935 microseconds
Simple read: 0.42580 / 0.43080 microseconds
Simple write: 0.36695 / 0.34565 microseconds
Simple stat: 2.71205 / 2.37415 microseconds
Simple fstat: 0.74955 / 0.66450 microseconds
Simple open/close: 3.95465 / 3.35740 microseconds
Select on 10 fd's: 0.74590 / 0.79510 microseconds
Select on 100 fd's: 2.97720 / 3.03445 microseconds
Select on 250 fd's: 6.51940 / 6.58265 microseconds
Select on 500 fd's: 12.56530 / 12.63580 microseconds
Signal handler installation: 0.63005 / 0.65285 microseconds
Signal handler overhead: 2.30350 / 2.24475 microseconds
Protection fault: 0.41750 / 0.42705 microseconds
Pipe latency: 6.04580 / 5.61270 microseconds
AF_UNIX sock stream latency: 9.00595 / 8.65615 microseconds
Process fork+exit: 130.57580 / 122.26665 microseconds
Process fork+execve: 491.81820 / 460.79490 microseconds
Process fork+/bin/sh -c: 2173.16665 / 2088.50000 microseconds
File /home/daniel/tmp/XXX write bandwidth: 23814.50000 / 23298.50000 KB/sec
Pagefaults on /home/daniel/tmp/XXX: 1.22625 / 1.17470 microseconds
"mappings
0.5242880 6.91 / 7.11
1.0485760 12.00 / 10.42
2.0971520 20.00 / 17.50
4.1943040 36.00 / 33.00
8.3886080 70.50 / 61.00
16.7772160 121.00 / 114.50
33.5544320 237.50 / 217.50
67.1088640 472.50 / 427.50
134.2177280 947.00 / 846.00
268.4354560 1891.00 / 1694.00
536.8709120 3786.00 / 3362.00
1073.7418240 8252.00 / 7357.00
As you expected, now there isn't a significant difference in the syscalls.
The summery of the tests where 2.6.28D.1 is the kernel after the patch
and 2.6.28D is the standard kernel is:
Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz null null open slct sig sig fork exec sh
call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc
--------- --------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
localhost Linux 2.6.28D 1678 0.26 0.40 2.71 4.02 5.61 0.63 2.30 129. 494. 2172
localhost Linux 2.6.28D 1678 0.26 0.40 2.71 3.89 5.61 0.63 2.31 131. 489. 2174
localhost Linux 2.6.28D.1 1678 0.25 0.39 2.38 3.34 5.70 0.65 2.24 122. 457. 2083
localhost Linux 2.6.28D.1 1678 0.25 0.39 2.37 3.37 5.68 0.65 2.25 122. 463. 2094
What do you think? Are there other tests you'd like me to run?
Daniel
--
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:[~2009-01-23 11:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <8c5a844a0901220851g1c21169al4452825564487b9a@mail.gmail.com>
2009-01-22 17:22 ` [PATCH 2.6.28 1/2] memory: improve find_vma Hugh Dickins
2009-01-22 23:00 ` Daniel Lowengrub
2009-01-22 23:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-23 11:10 ` Daniel Lowengrub [this message]
2009-01-28 21:31 ` Daniel Lowengrub
2009-01-29 14:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-01 11:19 ` Daniel Lowengrub
2009-02-01 13:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 11:26 ` Daniel Lowengrub
2009-02-05 19:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-05 19:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-17 17:12 Daniel Lowengrub
2009-01-18 22:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-01-20 16:26 ` Daniel Lowengrub
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=8c5a844a0901230310h7aa1ec83h60817de2b36212d8@mail.gmail.com \
--to=lowdanie@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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).