* [BENCHMARK] 2.5.5{4,5,6,7,8} with contest
@ 2003-01-16 10:14 Con Kolivas
2003-01-16 11:45 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2003-01-16 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux kernel mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here are a set of contest (http://contest.kolivas.net) benchmarks using the
osdl (http://www.osdl.org) hardware with the complete rewrite of contest
(v0.61pre):
The only change in the format is that the ratio is now the ratio vs the
no_load value for that kernel. All of these are new results as the old values
are no longer valid with the new version.
no_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 2 79 94.9 0 0.0 1.00
2.5.55 2 78 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
2.5.56 3 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
2.5.57 3 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
2.5.58 2 79 96.2 0 0.0 1.00
cacherun:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 2 76 98.7 0 0.0 0.96
2.5.55 2 76 98.7 0 0.0 0.97
2.5.56 3 76 100.0 0 0.0 0.96
2.5.57 3 76 100.0 0 0.0 0.96
2.5.58 2 76 100.0 0 0.0 0.96
process_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 2 93 81.7 29 17.2 1.18
2.5.55 2 94 79.8 30 17.0 1.21
2.5.56 3 93 80.6 29 16.1 1.18
2.5.57 3 93 81.7 28 16.1 1.18
2.5.58 2 92 81.5 27 15.2 1.16
ctar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 133 83.5 1 3.8 1.68
2.5.55 3 133 78.9 1 3.8 1.71
2.5.56 3 152 75.7 1 4.6 1.92
2.5.57 3 132 79.5 1 3.8 1.67
2.5.58 3 117 82.1 1 6.0 1.48
xtar_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 104 80.8 1 4.8 1.32
2.5.55 3 113 79.6 1 6.2 1.45
2.5.56 3 111 78.4 1 6.3 1.41
2.5.57 3 107 80.4 1 5.6 1.35
2.5.58 3 122 80.3 1 6.6 1.54
io_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 126 61.9 6 11.8 1.59
2.5.55 3 126 63.5 6 12.7 1.62
2.5.56 3 131 59.5 7 13.0 1.66
2.5.57 5 124 64.5 5 11.3 1.57
2.5.58 3 153 54.9 8 14.3 1.94
read_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 95 82.1 9 5.3 1.20
2.5.55 3 95 82.1 9 5.3 1.22
2.5.56 3 99 80.8 6 6.1 1.25
2.5.57 3 100 80.0 6 7.0 1.27
2.5.58 3 96 82.3 9 5.2 1.22
list_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.15
2.5.55 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.17
2.5.56 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.15
2.5.57 3 91 84.6 0 8.8 1.15
2.5.58 3 91 85.7 0 8.8 1.15
mem_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 107 76.6 47 0.9 1.35
2.5.55 3 116 73.3 66 1.7 1.49
2.5.56 3 107 80.4 45 0.9 1.35
2.5.57 3 110 80.0 47 0.9 1.39
2.5.58 3 107 73.8 66 1.9 1.35
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 118 66.1 3 24.6 1.49
2.5.55 3 117 68.4 2 16.2 1.50
2.5.56 3 89 60.7 4 24.7 1.13
2.5.57 4 96 64.6 2 20.7 1.22
2.5.58 3 122 64.8 3 24.6 1.54
A full set of archived results and hardware specs can be found here:
http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/
This is a good time to repeat the bug report that looked like spam last time I
posted it (sorry my mailer seemed to bork):
Since moving contest to c I get an error trying to fork with all 2.5 kernels I
try after running it on the 6th load. The error does not occur with any 2.4
kernels. I have confirmed it is still present on 2.5.58.
To reproduce the problem:
Run the latest version of contest without arguments (0.61pre) and after
no_load,cacherun,process_load,ctar_load,xtar_load and io_load it bombs out
with:
bmark.c:43: SYSTEM ERROR: Cannot allocate memory : fork error
It seems to occur only after a few loads followed by io_load.
This is not an application error and does not occur with 2.4.x kernels. It
happens every time and with all 2.5 kernels I have tried. I can start contest
again without problems after each error and eventually will run into the same
error.
Con
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+JoXvF6dfvkL3i1gRAtvyAJ9eRxKkc6vZO2tVjKFyWTnGlOPXKwCgnFXf
4vzAV6EWX0rg1fcZEucuvxk=
=BAuy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.5{4,5,6,7,8} with contest
2003-01-16 10:14 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.5{4,5,6,7,8} with contest Con Kolivas
@ 2003-01-16 11:45 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-16 12:07 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2003-01-16 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Con Kolivas; +Cc: linux-kernel
Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net> wrote:
>
> dbench_load:
> Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> 2.5.54 3 118 66.1 3 24.6 1.49
> 2.5.55 3 117 68.4 2 16.2 1.50
> 2.5.56 3 89 60.7 4 24.7 1.13
> 2.5.57 4 96 64.6 2 20.7 1.22
> 2.5.58 3 122 64.8 3 24.6 1.54
Is this statistically significant?
Looks like the I/O scheduler has slipped a bit. Nick did some testing which
shows that read-latency2 is still outperforming 2.5 by a factor of twenty on
read-vs-write fairness. He's working on that, but there is still a lot to do
on this front. We are nowhere near good enough yet.
> A full set of archived results and hardware specs can be found here:
> http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/
>
> This is a good time to repeat the bug report that looked like spam last time I
> posted it (sorry my mailer seemed to bork):
>
> Since moving contest to c I get an error trying to fork with all 2.5 kernels I
> try after running it on the 6th load. The error does not occur with any 2.4
> kernels. I have confirmed it is still present on 2.5.58.
>
> To reproduce the problem:
> Run the latest version of contest without arguments (0.61pre) and after
> no_load,cacherun,process_load,ctar_load,xtar_load and io_load it bombs out
> with:
> bmark.c:43: SYSTEM ERROR: Cannot allocate memory : fork error
>
> It seems to occur only after a few loads followed by io_load.
>
Ho hum. "it works for me".
My guess would be that ext3 has confused vm_enough_memory(). See, if you
delete an ext3 file immediately after writing it (as io_load does), ext3 will
leave all the pages on the page LRU, with attached buffers.
These pages are trivially reclaimable, but as far as the VM accounting is
concerned these pages are nowhere to be seen. So vm_enough_memory() says
"nope, not enough memory to fork". Perhaps.
Could you please do
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory
and see if it goes away?
I don't know what to do about this yet. Probably need to try to release
those buffers in ext3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.5.5{4,5,6,7,8} with contest
2003-01-16 11:45 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2003-01-16 12:07 ` Con Kolivas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Con Kolivas @ 2003-01-16 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thursday 16 Jan 2003 10:45 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Con Kolivas <conman@kolivas.net> wrote:
> > dbench_load:
> > Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
> > 2.5.54 3 118 66.1 3 24.6 1.49
> > 2.5.55 3 117 68.4 2 16.2 1.50
> > 2.5.56 3 89 60.7 4 24.7 1.13
> > 2.5.57 4 96 64.6 2 20.7 1.22
> > 2.5.58 3 122 64.8 3 24.6 1.54
>
> Is this statistically significant?
It's taking me a while to catch up with the contest code rewrite. A quick
perusal of the results shows a couple of dud runs in the .56 and .57 dbench
results, so no. Should have audited them first. Here's a corrected set with
the dud results removed:
dbench_load:
Kernel [runs] Time CPU% Loads LCPU% Ratio
2.5.54 3 118 66.1 3 24.6 1.49
2.5.55 3 117 68.4 2 16.2 1.50
2.5.56 2 124 62.9 3 25.8 1.57
2.5.57 3 121 64.5 3 22.3 1.53
2.5.58 3 122 64.8 3 24.6 1.54
No change there sorry.
>
> Looks like the I/O scheduler has slipped a bit. Nick did some testing
> which shows that read-latency2 is still outperforming 2.5 by a factor of
> twenty on read-vs-write fairness. He's working on that, but there is still
> a lot to do on this front. We are nowhere near good enough yet.
>
> > A full set of archived results and hardware specs can be found here:
> > http://www.osdl.org/projects/ctdevel/results/
> >
> > This is a good time to repeat the bug report that looked like spam last
> > time I posted it (sorry my mailer seemed to bork):
> >
> > Since moving contest to c I get an error trying to fork with all 2.5
> > kernels I try after running it on the 6th load. The error does not occur
> > with any 2.4 kernels. I have confirmed it is still present on 2.5.58.
> >
> > To reproduce the problem:
> > Run the latest version of contest without arguments (0.61pre) and after
> > no_load,cacherun,process_load,ctar_load,xtar_load and io_load it bombs
> > out with:
> > bmark.c:43: SYSTEM ERROR: Cannot allocate memory : fork error
> >
> > It seems to occur only after a few loads followed by io_load.
>
> Ho hum. "it works for me".
>
> My guess would be that ext3 has confused vm_enough_memory(). See, if you
> delete an ext3 file immediately after writing it (as io_load does), ext3
> will leave all the pages on the page LRU, with attached buffers.
>
> These pages are trivially reclaimable, but as far as the VM accounting is
> concerned these pages are nowhere to be seen. So vm_enough_memory() says
> "nope, not enough memory to fork". Perhaps.
>
> Could you please do
>
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory
>
> and see if it goes away?
Yes that fixes it.
Con
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-16 11:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-16 10:14 [BENCHMARK] 2.5.5{4,5,6,7,8} with contest Con Kolivas
2003-01-16 11:45 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-16 12:07 ` Con Kolivas
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox