From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21387F59 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 04:41:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931A6304043 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2015 01:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2oDj6cpAy9RYxcXO (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 01:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by wesu56 with SMTP id u56so896154wes.12 for ; Sun, 08 Mar 2015 01:41:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 10:41:29 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur Message-ID: <20150308094128.GA15487@gmail.com> References: <1425741651-29152-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1425741651-29152-5-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425741651-29152-5-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Mel Gorman Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux-MM , Aneesh Kumar , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds * Mel Gorman wrote: > xfsrepair > 4.0.0-rc1 4.0.0-rc1 3.19.0 > vanilla slowscan-v2 vanilla > Min real-fsmark 1157.41 ( 0.00%) 1150.38 ( 0.61%) 1164.44 ( -0.61%) > Min syst-fsmark 3998.06 ( 0.00%) 3988.42 ( 0.24%) 4016.12 ( -0.45%) > Min real-xfsrepair 497.64 ( 0.00%) 456.87 ( 8.19%) 442.64 ( 11.05%) > Min syst-xfsrepair 500.61 ( 0.00%) 263.41 ( 47.38%) 194.97 ( 61.05%) > Amean real-fsmark 1166.63 ( 0.00%) 1155.97 ( 0.91%) 1166.28 ( 0.03%) > Amean syst-fsmark 4020.94 ( 0.00%) 4004.19 ( 0.42%) 4025.87 ( -0.12%) > Amean real-xfsrepair 507.85 ( 0.00%) 459.58 ( 9.50%) 447.66 ( 11.85%) > Amean syst-xfsrepair 519.88 ( 0.00%) 281.63 ( 45.83%) 202.93 ( 60.97%) > Stddev real-fsmark 6.55 ( 0.00%) 3.97 ( 39.30%) 1.44 ( 77.98%) > Stddev syst-fsmark 16.22 ( 0.00%) 15.09 ( 6.96%) 9.76 ( 39.86%) > Stddev real-xfsrepair 11.17 ( 0.00%) 3.41 ( 69.43%) 5.57 ( 50.17%) > Stddev syst-xfsrepair 13.98 ( 0.00%) 19.94 (-42.60%) 5.69 ( 59.31%) > CoeffVar real-fsmark 0.56 ( 0.00%) 0.34 ( 38.74%) 0.12 ( 77.97%) > CoeffVar syst-fsmark 0.40 ( 0.00%) 0.38 ( 6.57%) 0.24 ( 39.93%) > CoeffVar real-xfsrepair 2.20 ( 0.00%) 0.74 ( 66.22%) 1.24 ( 43.47%) > CoeffVar syst-xfsrepair 2.69 ( 0.00%) 7.08 (-163.23%) 2.80 ( -4.23%) > Max real-fsmark 1171.98 ( 0.00%) 1159.25 ( 1.09%) 1167.96 ( 0.34%) > Max syst-fsmark 4033.84 ( 0.00%) 4024.53 ( 0.23%) 4039.20 ( -0.13%) > Max real-xfsrepair 523.40 ( 0.00%) 464.40 ( 11.27%) 455.42 ( 12.99%) > Max syst-xfsrepair 533.37 ( 0.00%) 309.38 ( 42.00%) 207.94 ( 61.01%) Btw., I think it would be nice if these numbers listed v3.19 performance in the first column, to make it clear at a glance how much regression we still have? Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs