Rik spreading bullshit about VM

Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Andrea Arcangeli]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2325 bytes --]

I read here:

	http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_ita1.htm

	[..] La nuova VM ha migliori performance rispetto alla vecchia sui
	tipici sistemi desktop ... ma fa fiasco terribilmente su più sistemi di
	quanto non lo facesse la vecchia VM. Redhat, per esempio, non ha potuto
	inserire la nuova VM nella sua distribuzione perché cadrebbe a pezzi per
	i database server, [..]

This is total bullshit. If there's something where the -aa VM is good
are the DBMS, that was designed for it basically, very lightweight,
basically no VM overhead also under very heavy I/O.

If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM into their kernels that's either a
political decision or they're not good enough at the VM. I can tell you
there are an huge number of users very happy about the -aa VM mainly on
DBMS, I know some redhat partner is also using the -aa VM for their
internal DBMS work (incidentally I assume rh kernels aren't good enough
for them?).  I don't care much of interviews, real people will make their
choice about the VM based on facts anyways, you may forbid someone to
try or you may convince someone that doesn't need much VM anyways saying
weird things like "collapse under high load or breaks on databases", but
still it's annoying to read such a bullshit and have people sending
emails to you about stuff that it isn't true.

So if you can proof any of your statements with numbers about
regressions with DB with -aa VM compared to 2.4.9 or
2.4.9+ac/rh/whatever please let us know. I have an huge amount of doc to
proof the exact opposite (the first few impressive emails I found are
attached) and most important I don't have a single bugreport about the
current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems
to be a little too late and that deals to lower numbers with slow write
load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning). Mainline VM kills too easily,
this is fixed in -aa VM and -aa VM has a number of other issues
resolved, but mainline 2.4 vm isn't that far either. In the last few
days I was playing with pte-highmem, soon I will spend some time merging
-aa VM into mainline with Marcelo if he likes to.

Andrea

PS. I know the interviewer and he's usually very accurate, so I don't
think this could be a misunderstanding where you say one thing and they
writer another one just to create troubles.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 9033 bytes --]

From: "Willi Nüßer" <wilhelm.nuesser@sap.com>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Performance tests 2.4.7 SuSE / Red Hat vs. 2.4.14 (pre8)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:12:01 +0100
Message-ID: <3BF11C21.8090809@sap.com>

Hi,

on LKML there were many discussions about the performance
of recent kernels. We did some test, too, and perhaps their
outcome is interesting to someone:

we tested in long time runs the performance of distributor
provide kernels based on 2.4.7 vs. the new stock 2.4.14 (pre 8).


1) Test description:
The test suite we use for our QA and stress tests consists of a
so-called "standard SAP SD benchmark". This benchmark tries to emulate a
typical user load on a SAP system. It consists of a benchmark driver
which simulates multiple users logging into the system and starting
transactions which consist of several dialog steps. The relevant
performance quantity is therefore based on the throughput, i.e. dialog
steps per second. More technically speaking the typical work load this
benchmark generates is dominated by m[map, copy], string operations and
integer operations. It has a huge memory footprint / working set
(approx. 2 GB). It tests mainly the CPU performance and the VM
behaviour. Network performance and  disk IO (for the database) are
much less important.

Test hardware:
4 way Dell, 4 GB physical RAM, SCSI/RAID subsystem,
DB runs on FS.

Test setting:
we configured the SAP system for 4GB and measured the dialog steps per
second for a situation where only 1 GB was activated at boot time.
This led to heavy swapping load over several hours to days.
The results were checked several times.

2) Main result:
Dialog steps per second of a typical test series:

	2.4.7			2.4.14
-----------------------------------------
	8.59			15.47
	4.40			14.76
	2.67			11.61
	2.30			14.63
	1.87			14.42
	1.65			15.30	
	1.26			15.02	
	1.68			14.53
	1.17 			15.23
	1.80			12.82
	1.10			14.59
	1.20			16.09
	1.26			14.38
	1.34			15.41


Two aspects seem to be reproduceable:
	1) whereas 2.4.7 shows a significant degradation over time
	2.4.14 remains stable.
	
	2) the asymptotic behaviour of the 2.4.14 based kernel is faster
	than 2.4.7 by a	_factor_ of around _10_. Compared to
	our previous experiences with 2.2 ad 2.4 based this is
	incredible... (OK, I don't want to become enthusiastic :-))


				
3) Details of typical runs:

2.4.7:
------

a)
vmstat 5:

          procs                      memory    swap          io     system
            cpu
        r  b  w   swpd   free   buff  cache  si  so    bi    bo   in
cs  us
        sy  id
        0 18  0 1718772   4692    380   9404  56  45    60    48   43    71
1   0  98
        0 15  1 1725360   5824    384   9384 5102 692  5109   713  410  1155
        2   1  96
        0 13  0 1723960   4824    372   9308 3316 467  3316   478  390   925
        2   2  96
        0 21  1 1719720   5576    368   9320 3973 1162  3978  1197  494 
   887
         3   2  95
        0 21  1 1727092   4732    368   9316 1539 1187  1539  1191  419 
   399
         1   1  98
        0 16  1 1726992   4752    368   9268 4510 951  4517   982  432   956
        4   3  94


b)
Top 10 of /proc/profile:
5785008 default_idle                             90390.7500
        10132 blk_get_queue                            126.6500
         6744 swap_out_pmd                              22.1842
         5839 refill_inactive_scan                      19.2072
         3451 __wake_up                                 17.9740
         9004 __get_swap_page                           13.7256
          402 __free_pages                              12.5625
         1143 __remove_inode_page                       10.2054
          469 add_wait_queue_exclusive                   9.7708
         3398 bounce_end_io_read                         9.2337


c)
meminfo during run:
               total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1051394048 1047044096  4349952 443473920  1052672 294608896
Swap: 4294934528 1314680832 2980253696
MemTotal:      1026752 kB
MemFree:          4248 kB
MemShared:      433080 kB
Buffers:          1028 kB
Cached:          20900 kB
SwapCached:     266804 kB
Active:         694700 kB
Inact_dirty:     19296 kB
Inact_clean:      7816 kB
Inact_target:    12836 kB
HighTotal:      131072 kB
HighFree:         1460 kB
LowTotal:       895680 kB
LowFree:          2788 kB
SwapTotal:     4194272 kB
SwapFree:      2910404 kB
NrSwapPages:    727602 pages


###################################################################

2.4.14:
--------

a) vmstat 5:
          procs                      memory    swap          io     system
            cpu
        r  b  w   swpd   free   buff  cache  si  so    bi    bo   in
cs  us
        sy  id
22  0  3 898668   6248    472 682160 273 108   298   187   67   391  55
         3  42
11  1  5 898696   2676    836 684692 2661 489  2813  1576  564  2570  91
         9   0
21  3  4 899164   5824    512 684520 2863 666  2947  2096  595  2517  77
         9  14
15  2  2 899628   5212    440 683816 3134 658  3260  2023  647  2631  89
         4   7
23  5  4 899796   5284    452 684860 2726 824  2842  2297  641  2552  81
         5  14
16  7  4 899700   6056    400 683916 3250 788  3346  2079  656  2527  89
         5   6



b) /proc/profile:
219002 default_idle                             3421.9062
          604 fget                                       9.4375
          452 system_call                                8.0714
          354 sock_poll                                  7.3750
          488 wake_up_process                            5.0833
         2123 scsi_dispatch_cmd                          4.9144
          230 add_wait_queue_exclusive                   4.7917
          269 mark_page_accessed                         4.2031
           55 RDOUTDOOR                                  3.4375
          197 __generic_copy_to_user                     3.0781

Despite a comparable swapping rate the 2.4.14 runs much more smooth.
One reason could be that the VM has stepped almost completely out of the
way...


c)
meminfo during run:
               total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
Mem:  1052712960 1046528000  6184960        0   319488 856850432
Swap: 4294934528 1313320960 2981613568
MemTotal:      1028040 kB
MemFree:          6040 kB
MemShared:           0 kB
Buffers:           312 kB
Cached:         714576 kB
SwapCached:     122192 kB
Active:         851084 kB
Inactive:       113592 kB
HighTotal:      131072 kB
HighFree:         2044 kB
LowTotal:       896968 kB
LowFree:          3996 kB
SwapTotal:     4194272 kB
SwapFree:      2911732 kB


###########################################################################

4) Our conclusion:

Although we still see some problems with the 2.4.14 based kernel it
looks really promising for us. A _stable_ increase of a factor of
10 in memory critical situations is impressive. Especially since our
customer tend to steer every system finally into this load region ;-)

Great work!


Best regards
	Willi Nuesser
	SAP LinuxLab

PS:
Please CC me, since I'm not on LKML

PPS:
In case you need any further info please mail me. We can put more
detailed data on our ftp server.










-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[-- Attachment #3: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2754 bytes --]

From: "Nuesser, Wilhelm" <wilhelm.nuesser@sap.com>
To: "'arjanv@redhat.com'" <arjanv@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Performance tests 2.4.7 SuSE / Red Hat vs. 2.4.14 (pre8)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:30:52 +0100
Message-ID: <816D93CCC927D31188570008C75D1DE106DEA661@dbwdfx1a.wdf.sap-ag.de>

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv@redhat.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 13. November 2001 14:23
> To: Nuesser, Wilhelm
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Performance tests 2.4.7 SuSE / Red Hat vs. 2.4.14 (pre8)
> 
> 
> 
> > 4) Our conclusion:
> > 
> > Although we still see some problems with the 2.4.14 based kernel it
> > looks really promising for us. A _stable_ increase of a factor of
> > 10 in memory critical situations is impressive. Especially since our
> > customer tend to steer every system finally into this load 
> region ;-)
> 
> Could you please also test the 2.4.9 RH kernel ?
> 

We did this, you know ...

The results were comparable to the 2.4.7 results, at least for the
kernels 2.4.9-[1,6]enterprise.

Best regards
	Willi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[-- Attachment #4: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3080 bytes --]

From: "Willi Nüßer" <wilhelm.nuesser@sap.com>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Comparison of PAE and Non-PAE 2..4.14 (p8) in high load
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:44:55 +0100
Message-ID: <3BF27557.30007@sap.com>

Hi,

after my first posting to lkml where we compared distributor
provided kernels vs. a plain 2.4.14-pre8 it was pointed
out that between PAE and non-PAE kernels some performance
differences might exist.


We checked this last night and here are the first results.
Again,
a) the relevant quantity dialog steps per second is a
measure for the throughput our application servers runs.
b) our application server and the corresponding database
(SAP DB) run on 4 way Dell, 1 GB at boot time enabled.

Results:
---------

2.4.7 
	2.4.14p8 PAE		2.4.14p4 non- PAE
-------------------------------------------------------------
   1.80		13.42            	15.47
   1.10		13.28            	14.76
   1.20 		14.08            	14.63
   1.26     	13.17            	15.30
   1.35		13.41            	14.51


This means that we did see a performance decrease of about
6 % compared to 2.4.14p8 nonPAE but still 2.4.14p8 is an order
of magnitude faster than 2.4.7

-- 
Best regards
	Willi

-----------------------------------
Willi Nuesser
SAP Linuxlab

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[-- Attachment #5: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3526 bytes --]

From: "Willi Nüßer" <wilhelm.nuesser@sap.com>
To: Brian Gerst <bgerst@didntduck.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Comparison of PAE and Non-PAE 2..4.14 (p8) in high load
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:36:12 +0100
Message-ID: <3BF28F6C.90008@sap.com>

Brian Gerst wrote:

 
>>
>>Results:
>>---------
>>
>>2.4.7
>>        2.4.14p8 PAE            2.4.14p4 non- PAE
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>   1.80         13.42                   15.47
>>   1.10         13.28                   14.76
>>   1.20                 14.08                   14.63
>>   1.26         13.17                   15.30
>>   1.35         13.41                   14.51
>>
>>This means that we did see a performance decrease of about
>>6 % compared to 2.4.14p8 nonPAE but still 2.4.14p8 is an order
>>of magnitude faster than 2.4.7
>>
> 
> PAE mode increases the size of the page table entries to 64-bits, and
> the x86 doesn't do 64-bit operations very well.  Plus it has three 

> levels of tables to work with instead of two.  


Yes, I know the difference. The reason for this post was not blind
curiosity but the presumption that the great performance increase of 
2.4.14p8 we reported was mainly due to the PAE enabling in the 2.4.7 and 
non-PAE-enabling 2.4.14p8 in our first test.

The tests above show that this is not the case. Even with PAE 2.4.14 is
faster by an order of magnitude.

The other info we did find interesting is the actual amount of 
difference between PAE and nonPAE. The 6% we got fit very well in some
estimates I found on lkml.

-- 
Best regards
Willi

-----------------------------------
Willi Nuesser
SAP Linuxlab

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Jose Luis Domingo Lopez]

On Wednesday, 16 January 2002, at 20:04:59 +0100,
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> I read here:
> 
> 	http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_ita1.htm
> 
I'm not a programmer. I'm not a kernel hacker. I don't like _very_
valuable people wasting their time reading messages like mine. I give
credit to all of you (Andrea, Rik, Linus, Alan and everyine else), and
sincerely thank you for your hard and good work. I don't try to start or
give fuel to a flame war.

But, Andrea, sometimes people like me _feel_ that bugs supposedly related
to your VM implementation, and reported in this list, go without your
attention. I'm completely sure you read all bug reports, and work
"off-line" to solve them (-aa seems to be where they live). I am not of
those who like talking a lot, but would be very nice (and it will sure
decrease repeated bug reports and neverending threads about known
problems) to sometimes answer some bug reports.

I try to keep in sync with the list, and it's very difficult to find
if those "corner cases" your VM seem to still suffer under are solved in
your three, known but not solved, solved and merged, solved and sent to
Marcelo, etc.

In short, is more a feeling of believing that no one cares about the few
problems that still exist than "objective unstability" of the VM. 

Just my 0.02.

-- 
José Luis Domingo López
Linux Registered User #189436     Debian Linux Woody (P166 64 MB RAM)
 
jdomingo AT internautas DOT   org  => Spam at your own risk

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Richard Gooch]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]

Andrea Arcangeli writes:
> 
> --2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> 
> I read here:
> 
> 	http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_ita1.htm
> 
> 	[..] La nuova VM ha migliori performance rispetto alla vecchia sui
> 	tipici sistemi desktop ... ma fa fiasco terribilmente su più sistemi di
> 	quanto non lo facesse la vecchia VM. Redhat, per esempio, non ha potuto
> 	inserire la nuova VM nella sua distribuzione perché cadrebbe a pezzi per
> 	i database server, [..]
>
> This is total bullshit. If there's something where the -aa VM is good
> are the DBMS, that was designed for it basically, very lightweight,
> basically no VM overhead also under very heavy I/O.

I don't know why you're so upset. As far as I can tell, Rik has warmly
praised your VM in the above message. Of course, since you didn't
provide an English translation, I can't really be sure. Perhaps Rik
was talking about Virtual Machines, and not Virtual Memory? Or perhaps
Virgin Mary?

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current:   rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Dave Jones]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Richard Gooch wrote:

> > 	[..] La nuova VM ha migliori performance rispetto alla vecchia sui
> > 	tipici sistemi desktop ... ma fa fiasco terribilmente su più sistemi di
> > 	quanto non lo facesse la vecchia VM. Redhat, per esempio, non ha potuto
> > 	inserire la nuova VM nella sua distribuzione perché cadrebbe a pezzi per
> > 	i database server, [..]

> I don't know why you're so upset. As far as I can tell, Rik has warmly
> praised your VM in the above message. Of course, since you didn't
> provide an English translation, I can't really be sure.

English (Well, some crazy moon-language dialect of english) translation:-
http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_en1.htm

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > > 	[..] La nuova VM ha migliori performance rispetto alla vecchia sui
> > > 	tipici sistemi desktop ... ma fa fiasco terribilmente su più sistemi di
> > > 	quanto non lo facesse la vecchia VM. Redhat, per esempio, non ha potuto
> > > 	inserire la nuova VM nella sua distribuzione perché cadrebbe a pezzi per
> > > 	i database server, [..]
>
> > I don't know why you're so upset. As far as I can tell, Rik has warmly
> > praised your VM in the above message. Of course, since you didn't
> > provide an English translation, I can't really be sure.
>
> English (Well, some crazy moon-language dialect of english) translation:-
> http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_en1.htm

It seems the IRC log of the journalist in question was missing
some lines of what I said and he just glued together the remaining
parts of the paragraph for that particular question ;)

The rest of the interview seems to have survived pretty ok, though.

cheers,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: [lkml] Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Ian Soboroff]

Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> writes:

> It seems the IRC log of the journalist in question was missing
> some lines of what I said and he just glued together the remaining
> parts of the paragraph for that particular question ;)

It also looked to me like Rik was talking about the mainline VM, not
any VM that exists in the many not-yet-integrated -aa patchsets.

The argument always feels to me like:

Joe Luser: "I downloaded a 2.4 kernel and boy does the VM bite!"  

AA: "That's not true at all, but you need to apply these thirteen -aa
     patches from my site."  

Joe Luser: <runs away in fear>

ian

...Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Dan Mann]

Don't worry about it.  Everyone knows (or should know) that you and
Andrea both have the best interest of the kernel vm in mind.  It's
normal for both of you to have strong feelings about something that you
both take pride in.  What would be great would be seeing both of you
come together and really kick some serious vm ass and prove that linux
can compete with any OS.  Maybe you two can come to a compromise along
the lines of "we'll try it your way for a while, and I'll back you, then
we'll try it my way for a while and you back me.  We'll go with the one
that works best for Linux."

I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of members on this list
that respect you both and believe that either one of you can provide a
great vm.

I'm behind both of you.

my .02

Dan

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Luigi Genoni]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > > 	[..] La nuova VM ha migliori performance rispetto alla vecchia sui
> > > 	tipici sistemi desktop ... ma fa fiasco terribilmente su più sistemi di
> > > 	quanto non lo facesse la vecchia VM. Redhat, per esempio, non ha potuto
> > > 	inserire la nuova VM nella sua distribuzione perché cadrebbe a pezzi per
> > > 	i database server, [..]
>
> > I don't know why you're so upset. As far as I can tell, Rik has warmly
> > praised your VM in the above message. Of course, since you didn't
> > provide an English translation, I can't really be sure.
>
> English (Well, some crazy moon-language dialect of english) translation:-
> http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_en1.htm
err, the english version is the original one...

>
> --
> | Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> | SuSE Labs
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Craig Knox]

English translation:
http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_en1.htm

> I don't know why you're so upset. As far as I can tell, Rik has warmly
> praised your VM in the above message. Of course, since you didn't
> provide an English translation, I can't really be sure. Perhaps Rik
> was talking about Virtual Machines, and not Virtual Memory? Or perhaps
> Virgin Mary?
> 
> 				Regards,
> 
> 					Richard....
> Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
> Current:   rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Bongani Hlope]

On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 21:04, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 				
[---SNIP---]
> 3) Details of typical runs:
> 
> 2.4.7:

[---SNIP---]

> ------

> 
> c)
> meminfo during run:
>                total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
> Mem:  1051394048 1047044096  4349952 443473920  1052672 294608896
> Swap: 4294934528 1314680832 2980253696
> MemTotal:      1026752 kB
> MemFree:          4248 kB
> MemShared:      433080 kB <============== [1]
> Buffers:          1028 kB
> Cached:          20900 kB
> SwapCached:     266804 kB
> Active:         694700 kB
> Inact_dirty:     19296 kB
> Inact_clean:      7816 kB
> Inact_target:    12836 kB
> HighTotal:      131072 kB
> HighFree:         1460 kB
> LowTotal:       895680 kB
> LowFree:          2788 kB
> SwapTotal:     4194272 kB
> SwapFree:      2910404 kB
> NrSwapPages:    727602 pages
> 
> 
> ###################################################################
> 
> 2.4.14:
> --------
> 
[--SNIP--]
> c)
> meminfo during run:
>                total:    used:    free:  shared: buffers:  cached:
> Mem:  1052712960 1046528000  6184960        0   319488 856850432
> Swap: 4294934528 1313320960 2981613568
> MemTotal:      1028040 kB
> MemFree:          6040 kB
> MemShared:           0 kB <================ [2]
> Buffers:           312 kB
> Cached:         714576 kB
> SwapCached:     122192 kB
> Active:         851084 kB
> Inactive:       113592 kB
> HighTotal:      131072 kB
> HighFree:         2044 kB
> LowTotal:       896968 kB
> LowFree:          3996 kB
> SwapTotal:     4194272 kB
> SwapFree:      2911732 kB

Andrea your VM also works perfectly for me, and I think you are doing
a brilliant job on it. The only thing that I have noticed that worries
me is the lack of MemShared. I wass about to study the code and try to 
find out why it is always 0 kB on my PC, but these stats also show the
same results. Do you have any idea why this is so. I will still study
the code (just for the fun of it), maybe I might learn something about
te VM system.

	-Bongani

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[John Levon]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:58:31PM +0200, Bongani Hlope wrote:

> a brilliant job on it. The only thing that I have noticed that worries
> me is the lack of MemShared. I wass about to study the code and try to 
> find out why it is always 0 kB on my PC, but these stats also show the
> same results. Do you have any idea why this is so. I will still study
> the code (just for the fun of it), maybe I might learn something about
> te VM system.

http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-3

> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


regards
john

-- 
"Now why did you have to go and mess up the child's head, so you can get another gold waterbed ?
 You fake-hair contact-wearing liposuction carnival exhibit, listen to my rhyme ..."

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Bongani Hlope]

On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 22:55, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:58:31PM +0200, Bongani Hlope wrote:
> 
> > a brilliant job on it. The only thing that I have noticed that worries
> > me is the lack of MemShared. I wass about to study the code and try to 
> > find out why it is always 0 kB on my PC, but these stats also show the
> > same results. Do you have any idea why this is so. I will still study
> > the code (just for the fun of it), maybe I might learn something about
> > te VM system.
> 
> http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s14-3
> 
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 
> regards
> john

Thank you I missed that, its been a while since I read the FAQ

Thank
Bongani
> 
> -- 
> "Now why did you have to go and mess up the child's head, so you can get another gold waterbed ?
>  You fake-hair contact-wearing liposuction carnival exhibit, listen to my rhyme ..."
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Adam Kropelin]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
<snip>
>I don't have a single bugreport about the current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except 
>perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems to be a little too late and that deals to 
>lower numbers with slow write load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning). 

I don't know if this is a reference to the issue I reported under the "Writeout in
recent kernels..." thread or not. If not, my apologies for clogging up this new
"discussion".

As reported[0] in the above-mentioned thread, the bdflush tuning parameters
you suggested made no difference in my test case other than slightly adjusting
the temporal relationship between writeout and file transfer. -aa still performs
slightly worse than both 2.4.17 stock and -rmap. 2.4.13-ac7 currently beats
all competitors.

--Adam

[0] http://www.kroptech.com:8300/mailimport/showmsg.php?msg_id=49746&db_name=linux_kernel

async buffer flushing reported slowdown (could be a driver issue?)

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 04:29:54PM -0500, Adam Kropelin wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> <snip>
> >I don't have a single bugreport about the current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except 
> >perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems to be a little too late and that deals to 
> >lower numbers with slow write load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning). 
> 
> I don't know if this is a reference to the issue I reported under the "Writeout in
> recent kernels..." thread or not. If not, my apologies for clogging up this new
> "discussion".

yes, I was thinking about you report.

> 
> As reported[0] in the above-mentioned thread, the bdflush tuning parameters
> you suggested made no difference in my test case other than slightly adjusting
> the temporal relationship between writeout and file transfer. -aa still performs
> slightly worse than both 2.4.17 stock and -rmap. 2.4.13-ac7 currently beats
> all competitors.

Then can you verify the bandwith you get out of the network card is the
same across 2.4.13-ac7 and all the other kernels you are trying. Also
please check with an hdparm -t the speed you get out of IDE is the same.
This sounds like some driver changed (note that -ac is used to queue
lots of driver updates) and that made the difference. Otherwise if we
wakeup bdflush early enough I don't see why it takes more time.

Andrea

Re: async buffer flushing reported slowdown (could be a driver issue?)

[Adam Kropelin]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 04:29:54PM -0500, Adam Kropelin wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >I don't have a single bugreport about the current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except
> > >perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems to be a little too late and that
deals to
> > >lower numbers with slow write load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning).
> >
> > As reported[0] in the above-mentioned thread, the bdflush tuning parameters
> > you suggested made no difference in my test case other than slightly
adjusting
> > the temporal relationship between writeout and file transfer. -aa still
performs
> > slightly worse than both 2.4.17 stock and -rmap. 2.4.13-ac7 currently beats
> > all competitors.
>
> Then can you verify the bandwith you get out of the network card is the
> same across 2.4.13-ac7 and all the other kernels you are trying. Also

I'll check that and get back to you.

> please check with an hdparm -t the speed you get out of IDE is the same.

There is no IDE in the system. The destination for the file transfer is on
cpqarray RAID5. Do you have a recommendation for how I test the transfer rate of
that without stressing the VM?

> This sounds like some driver changed (note that -ac is used to queue
> lots of driver updates) and that made the difference. Otherwise if we
> wakeup bdflush early enough I don't see why it takes more time.

One of my original tests[0] was to take the cpqarray update from -ac and bring
it forward to 2.4.17. I saw about 20 sec improvement with that, still not
competitive overall with -ac performance. I'll try doing the same with eepro
driver, which is the NIC I'm using.

--Adam

[0]
http://www.kroptech.com:8300/mailimport/showmsg.php?msg_id=49714&db_name=linux_k
ernel

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Diego Calleja]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> attached) and most important I don't have a single bugreport about the
> current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems
> to be a little too late and that deals to lower numbers with slow write
> load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning). Mainline VM kills too easily,

Well, I haven't reported it yet, but booting my box with mem=4M
gave as result: (running 2.4.18-pre2aa2):
diego# cat /var/log/messages | grep gfp
Jan 13 15:37:10 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 16:06:28 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 18:37:21 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 21:58:32 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 21:58:33 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
diego# 

Each script of /etc/rc.d was killed by VM when it was started, there wasn't
any "OOM", just
"VM killed..." or something similar.
As /etc/rc.d scripts were killed, I couldn't start swap.

The gfp=0x... numbers were not always the same, but I can't remember them
because syslogd wasn't running.
I can repeat this if you want and I'll copy all messages.

..I remember running 2.2.14 in a 386 box with 4MB of RAM and 8 or 16 of
swap. It was veeery slow, but even I could run apache :-)...



> this is fixed in -aa VM and -aa VM has a number of other issues
> resolved, but mainline 2.4 vm isn't that far either. In the last few
> days I was playing with pte-highmem, soon I will spend some time merging
> -aa VM into mainline with Marcelo if he likes to.
> 
> Andrea
> 
> PS. I know the interviewer and he's usually very accurate, so I don't
> think this could be a misunderstanding where you say one thing and they
> writer another one just to create troubles.
> 
> 

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Diego Calleja wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > attached) and most important I don't have a single bugreport about the
> > current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems
>
> Well, I haven't reported it yet, but booting my box with mem=4M
> gave as result: (running 2.4.18-pre2aa2):
> diego# cat /var/log/messages | grep gfp
> Jan 13 15:37:10 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> (gfp=0xf0/0)

> Each script of /etc/rc.d was killed by VM when it was started,

It seems Andrea's patch backs out a bugfix for this problem
which marcelo and me put into the normal 2.4 kernel ...

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

bugfix backed out

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 08:02:42PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Diego Calleja wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > attached) and most important I don't have a single bugreport about the
> > > current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems
> >
> > Well, I haven't reported it yet, but booting my box with mem=4M
> > gave as result: (running 2.4.18-pre2aa2):
> > diego# cat /var/log/messages | grep gfp
> > Jan 13 15:37:10 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> > (gfp=0xf0/0)
> 
> > Each script of /etc/rc.d was killed by VM when it was started,
> 
> It seems Andrea's patch backs out a bugfix for this problem
> which marcelo and me put into the normal 2.4 kernel ...

hmm, is this the bugfix you mean? that shouldn't really matter to me as
far I can tell, I did it in an alternate way since the first place.

diff -urN 2.4.17pre8/mm/vmscan.c 2.4.17/mm/vmscan.c
--- 2.4.17pre8/mm/vmscan.c      Fri Nov 23 08:21:05 2001
+++ 2.4.17/mm/vmscan.c  Fri Dec 21 20:06:55 2001
@@ -338,7 +338,7 @@
 {
        struct list_head * entry;
        int max_scan = nr_inactive_pages / priority;
-       int max_mapped = nr_pages << (9 - priority);
+       int max_mapped = min((nr_pages << (10 - priority)), max_scan / 10);
 
        spin_lock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
        while (--max_scan >= 0 && (entry = inactive_list.prev) != &inactive_list) {

furthmore I hate those "10" hardwirded magic numbers that you keep
adding. The less of them the better. At least I put those magics in
sysctl.

see what my max_mapped is:

	int orig_max_mapped = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * vm_mapped_ratio,

It is controlled by the vm_mapped_ratio and by the swap-cluster. So we
unmap one swap cluster at every vm_mapped_ratio of pages scanned that
were mapped. This ensure we unmap when there's some relevant work to do.
The lower the vm_mapped_ratio, the earlier the kernel will start
swapping/paging. (ah, and of course also the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX would
better be a sysctl but it isn't yet)

Andrea

Re: bugfix backed out

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> hmm, is this the bugfix you mean? that shouldn't really matter to me as
> far I can tell, I did it in an alternate way since the first place.

It matters a lot since without this change max_mapped
will always be larger than max_scan and swap_out() will
NEVER be called.

If this is fixed in another way in -aa I must have missed
that piece of code, I only stared at the patch for about
10 minutes before writing this email.

> diff -urN 2.4.17pre8/mm/vmscan.c 2.4.17/mm/vmscan.c
> --- 2.4.17pre8/mm/vmscan.c      Fri Nov 23 08:21:05 2001
> +++ 2.4.17/mm/vmscan.c  Fri Dec 21 20:06:55 2001
> @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@
>  {
>         struct list_head * entry;
>         int max_scan = nr_inactive_pages / priority;
> -       int max_mapped = nr_pages << (9 - priority);
> +       int max_mapped = min((nr_pages << (10 - priority)), max_scan / 10);
>
>         spin_lock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
>         while (--max_scan >= 0 && (entry = inactive_list.prev) != &inactive_list) {
>
> furthmore I hate those "10" hardwirded magic numbers that you keep
> adding. The less of them the better. At least I put those magics in
> sysctl.

Absolutely agreed ... if it helps you, it was marcelo who
changed the 9 to 10 ;)

Ideally we'd have a VM which runs ok without magic numbers,
or at least one where changing the magic numbers has extremely
little influence, the defaults work and the sysctl switches
don't require you to learn how all the VM internals work.

> see what my max_mapped is:
>
> 	int orig_max_mapped = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * vm_mapped_ratio,
>
> It is controlled by the vm_mapped_ratio and by the swap-cluster. So we
> unmap one swap cluster at every vm_mapped_ratio of pages scanned that
> were mapped. This ensure we unmap when there's some relevant work to do.
> The lower the vm_mapped_ratio, the earlier the kernel will start
> swapping/paging. (ah, and of course also the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX would
> better be a sysctl but it isn't yet)

Yes, but what happens when orig_max_mapped gets larger than
max_scan ?  How does the -aa VM protect against that ?

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: bugfix backed out

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:04:07PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> > hmm, is this the bugfix you mean? that shouldn't really matter to me as
> > far I can tell, I did it in an alternate way since the first place.
> 
> It matters a lot since without this change max_mapped
> will always be larger than max_scan and swap_out() will
> NEVER be called.

I see, thanks for the explanation.

> If this is fixed in another way in -aa I must have missed

yes, -aa handles differently the case where max_scan expires.

> > diff -urN 2.4.17pre8/mm/vmscan.c 2.4.17/mm/vmscan.c
> > --- 2.4.17pre8/mm/vmscan.c      Fri Nov 23 08:21:05 2001
> > +++ 2.4.17/mm/vmscan.c  Fri Dec 21 20:06:55 2001
> > @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@
> >  {
> >         struct list_head * entry;
> >         int max_scan = nr_inactive_pages / priority;
> > -       int max_mapped = nr_pages << (9 - priority);
> > +       int max_mapped = min((nr_pages << (10 - priority)), max_scan / 10);
> >
> >         spin_lock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
> >         while (--max_scan >= 0 && (entry = inactive_list.prev) != &inactive_list) {
> >
> > furthmore I hate those "10" hardwirded magic numbers that you keep
> > adding. The less of them the better. At least I put those magics in
> > sysctl.
> 
> Absolutely agreed ... if it helps you, it was marcelo who
> changed the 9 to 10 ;)

Never mind :)

> Ideally we'd have a VM which runs ok without magic numbers,
> or at least one where changing the magic numbers has extremely
> little influence, the defaults work and the sysctl switches
> don't require you to learn how all the VM internals work.

100% agreed.

> 
> > see what my max_mapped is:
> >
> > 	int orig_max_mapped = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * vm_mapped_ratio,
> >
> > It is controlled by the vm_mapped_ratio and by the swap-cluster. So we
> > unmap one swap cluster at every vm_mapped_ratio of pages scanned that
> > were mapped. This ensure we unmap when there's some relevant work to do.
> > The lower the vm_mapped_ratio, the earlier the kernel will start
> > swapping/paging. (ah, and of course also the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX would
> > better be a sysctl but it isn't yet)
> 
> Yes, but what happens when orig_max_mapped gets larger than
> max_scan ?  How does the -aa VM protect against that ?

in short I recall swap_out also from the outside of shrink_caches, if it
fails (if max_scan timeouts it means shrink_caches will fail).

Andrea

oom failures with mem=4m

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 10:58:45PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > attached) and most important I don't have a single bugreport about the
> > current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems
> > to be a little too late and that deals to lower numbers with slow write
> > load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning). Mainline VM kills too easily,
> 
> Well, I haven't reported it yet, but booting my box with mem=4M
> gave as result: (running 2.4.18-pre2aa2):
> diego# cat /var/log/messages | grep gfp
> Jan 13 15:37:10 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> (gfp=0xf0/0)
> Jan 15 16:06:28 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> (gfp=0xf0/0)
> Jan 15 18:37:21 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> (gfp=0xf0/0)
> Jan 15 21:58:32 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> (gfp=0xf0/0)
> Jan 15 21:58:33 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
> (gfp=0xf0/0)
> diego# 

0xf0 shouldn't lead to an oom killing, there should be some other failure
before the killing. The above are normal warnings, they're KERN_NOTICE,
not KERN_WARNING nor KERN_ERROR.

> 
> Each script of /etc/rc.d was killed by VM when it was started, there wasn't
> any "OOM", just
> "VM killed..." or something similar.

That means there wasn't enough memory, sounds like your bootup
sequence is broken and startup something big before activating swap,
either that or you start something that takes more than 16+4m, note that
with any recent distribution it is very easy that you need 16+4 after a
little time after boot.

If you could provide a vmstat trace during the VM killing, that could
show better if the VM is the culprit or if it did the right thing.

I know for experience at the first VM killing people tends to point
the finger at the VM (me too sometime at first, see the pte-highmem
thread) but at least in my tree that never turned out to be the case
yet.

> As /etc/rc.d scripts were killed, I couldn't start swap.

Can you try to boot with emergency, then activate swap, and then check
if it runs oom again despite lots of free swap available etc...? thanks,

> 
> The gfp=0x... numbers were not always the same, but I can't remember them
> because syslogd wasn't running.
> I can repeat this if you want and I'll copy all messages.
> 
> ..I remember running 2.2.14 in a 386 box with 4MB of RAM and 8 or 16 of
> swap. It was veeery slow, but even I could run apache :-)...

:)

Andrea

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Diego Calleja]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> attached) and most important I don't have a single bugreport about the
> current 2.4.18pre2aa2 VM (except perhaps the bdflush wakeup that seems
> to be a little too late and that deals to lower numbers with slow write
> load etc.., fixable with bdflush tuning). Mainline VM kills too easily,

Well, I haven't reported it yet, but booting my box with mem=4M
gave as result: (running 2.4.18-pre2aa2):
diego# cat /var/log/messages | grep gfp
Jan 13 15:37:10 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 16:06:28 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 18:37:21 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 21:58:32 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
Jan 15 21:58:33 localhost kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed
(gfp=0xf0/0)
diego# 

Each script of /etc/rc.d was killed by VM when it was started, there wasn't
any "OOM", just
"VM killed..." or something similar.
As /etc/rc.d scripts were killed, I couldn't start swap.

The gfp=0x... numbers were not always the same, but I can't remember them
because syslogd wasn't running.
I can repeat this if you want and I'll copy all messages.

..I remember running 2.2.14 in a 386 box with 4MB of RAM and 8 or 16 of
swap. It was veeery slow, but even I could run apache :-)...



> this is fixed in -aa VM and -aa VM has a number of other issues
> resolved, but mainline 2.4 vm isn't that far either. In the last few
> days I was playing with pte-highmem, soon I will spend some time merging
> -aa VM into mainline with Marcelo if he likes to.
> 
> Andrea
> 
> PS. I know the interviewer and he's usually very accurate, so I don't
> think this could be a misunderstanding where you say one thing and they
> writer another one just to create troubles.
> 
> 

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Chris Chabot]

> Test hardware:
> 4 way Dell, 4 GB physical RAM, SCSI/RAID subsystem,
> DB runs on FS.

Can we first make sure that the other factors dont plat a rol in this 
benchmark? I have a couple (14+) Dell servers here, and i know for a 
fact that most of their RAID systems are heavely borked in the 
performance department.

All kernels upto 2.4.1x performed horibly, and all kernels after 2.4.16 
or so perform horibly again! Somewhere inbetween some magic seemed to 
happen in the block layer / elevator code / etc, that caused performance 
to increase upto 100% on the Dell PERC adapters. (started @ the first 
release of the AA VM). However after a few small releases, the 
performance went down to the same old horible level again.

So it might well be (very likely actualy) that the tested redhat 2.4.14 
is a performance 'sweet spot' kernel, where kernels  < 2.4.13 and > 
2.4.15 or 16 are definatly not.

The raid performance is a whole issue on its self. part seems to be 
block IO / Elevator / driver related, and a part seems to be adapter 
firmware related. (And adaptec refusing to release their drivers).

However since both 2.4.17 and 2.4.7 have the same horible RAID 
performance, i do not think the VM is responcible for that part ;-)

A good test would be to configure those disks on a normal AIC7xxx 
adapter, and software raiding them together. The performance of that is 
'equal' between those different kernels, and much much higher then the 
hardware raid. Benchmarking with this would give much better results for 
benchmarking VM's

    -- Chris

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Christoph Rohland]

Hi Chris,

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Chris Chabot wrote:
> 
>> Test hardware:
>> 4 way Dell, 4 GB physical RAM, SCSI/RAID subsystem,
>> DB runs on FS.
> 
> Can we first make sure that the other factors dont plat a rol in
> this benchmark? I have a couple (14+) Dell servers here, and i know
> for a fact that most of their RAID systems are heavely borked in the
> performance department.

We run these tests regularly on different hardware - We have hardware
from Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM and FSC.

All tests so far showed the same overall performance tendencies.

Greetings
		Christoph

blkdev speedup

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:44:37PM +0100, Chris Chabot wrote:
> 
> > Test hardware:
> > 4 way Dell, 4 GB physical RAM, SCSI/RAID subsystem,
> > DB runs on FS.
> 
> Can we first make sure that the other factors dont plat a rol in this 
> benchmark? I have a couple (14+) Dell servers here, and i know for a 
> fact that most of their RAID systems are heavely borked in the 
> performance department.
> 
> All kernels upto 2.4.1x performed horibly, and all kernels after 2.4.16 
> or so perform horibly again! Somewhere inbetween some magic seemed to 
> happen in the block layer / elevator code / etc, that caused performance 
> to increase upto 100% on the Dell PERC adapters. (started @ the first 
> release of the AA VM). However after a few small releases, the 

if you're using the blkdev directly, then please try to mount the blkdev
with a 4k filesystem before making your benchmark, that should give you
the magic performance back. 2.4.10 intentionally were defaulting to 4k
I/O, this is probably what made the difference for you.

Andrea

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Erik Mouw]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 08:04:59PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I read here:
> 
> 	http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_ita1.htm

  [...]

> This is total bullshit. If there's something where the -aa VM is good
> are the DBMS, that was designed for it basically, very lightweight,
> basically no VM overhead also under very heavy I/O.

Sorry, but in my opinion Rik's rmap VM still beats your VM under IO
load. My benchmark is very simple: import a kernel tree into a CVS tree
that already contains about 470 other kernel trees. Both the import
directory and the CVS root are on the same disk. With 2.4.17 the mp3
player stutters, I can't even read email or edit a couple of files with
XEmacs at the same time. With 2.4.17-rmap-11a the mp3 player runs
smoothly and email and XEmacs are usable again.

Some time ago Linus made the important observation that we shouldn't
tune the scheduler for SMP systems simply because 99.9% of the systems
in the world running linux have a single CPU. IMHO an equally well
observation would be that we shouldn't tune the VM for the 0.1% of the
systems in this world that run large DMBSes. The 99.9% majority is much
more important.

Just my 0.02.


Erik

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory Group, Faculty
of Information Technology and Systems, Delft University of Technology,
PO BOX 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands  Phone: +31-15-2783635
Fax: +31-15-2781843  Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl
WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[J Sloan]

Erik Mouw wrote:

>Sorry, but in my opinion Rik's rmap VM still beats your VM under IO
>load. My benchmark is very simple: import a kernel tree into a CVS tree
>that already contains about 470 other kernel trees. Both the import
>directory and the CVS root are on the same disk. With 2.4.17 the mp3
>player stutters, I can't even read email or edit a couple of files with
>XEmacs at the same time. With 2.4.17-rmap-11a the mp3 player runs
>smoothly and email and XEmacs are usable again.
>
Nice try, but do the test again with 2.4.18-pre2-aa2 -

2.4.17 doesn't neccesarily have all andrea's fixes.

Just my .02

jjs

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Erik Mouw]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 04:25:45PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> Nice try, but do the test again with 2.4.18-pre2-aa2 -
> 
> 2.4.17 doesn't neccesarily have all andrea's fixes.

Nice try, but 2.4.17-rmap-11a doesn't have all Rik's fixes either
(rmap-11b is available, but I don't feel like running a new kernel
every few days).

I've been running a couple of 2.4.17-pre kernels on my laptop (which is
my primary machine), but each time they made me switch back to good old
2.4.13-ac5 simply because its VM (read: Rik's VM) was much smoother.

It's not that I think Andrea's VM is bad, it's just that a VM should be
tuned for the common cases, not for the power users that want to
squeeze every last drop out of it. It's fine with me if somebody wants
to design a VM for the niche XYZ, but do that as a separate patch and
don't clutter up the mainline kernel with it.


Erik
[sleep(7*3600);]

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory Group, Faculty
of Information Technology and Systems, Delft University of Technology,
PO BOX 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands  Phone: +31-15-2783635
Fax: +31-15-2781843  Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl
WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[bill davidsen]

In article <20020117011520.GM10175@arthur.ubicom.tudelft.nl> you write:

| It's not that I think Andrea's VM is bad, it's just that a VM should be
| tuned for the common cases, not for the power users that want to
| squeeze every last drop out of it. It's fine with me if somebody wants
| to design a VM for the niche XYZ, but do that as a separate patch and
| don't clutter up the mainline kernel with it.

  I have a few points of disagreement with that. I have no idea what
prices are doing elsewhere, but in the USA memory prices are around
$250-400/GB for memory (from crap to decent ECC) and there are a lot
more machines which live in the "power user" range then there used to
be. And when memory was really cheap, ~$150/GB, many people built big
Athlon systems for small $$. I totally agree that Linux should run in
4MB, but that's not typical anymore.

  My real disagreement is that we should be doing worst case analysis on
the VM and scheduler rather than trying to go for best at one thing,
calling that typical, and then letting all other loads take the
leavings. I like to be able to tune, the the kernel should do a decent
job with systems having any reasonable mix of large and small, i/o and
CPU bound jobs. I don't like even the implication that it's okay for
performance to suck, or for new kernels to be worse than 2.4.14 or so.
Alan Cox had some somments on this, and has started the -ac series again
because of it.

  So far I find 18pre2aa2 with some setting for bdflush to work
acceptably on several largish machines and one small system with many
processes and working set 3-4x physical memory. More later.

  Let's aim for "doesn't suck" instead of "perfect for XXX" and more
people will be satisfied if not delighted.
-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Alan Cox]

> directory and the CVS root are on the same disk. With 2.4.17 the mp3
> player stutters, I can't even read email or edit a couple of files with
> XEmacs at the same time. With 2.4.17-rmap-11a the mp3 player runs
> smoothly and email and XEmacs are usable again.

Try 2.4.17-aa as well - the -aa stuff generally behaves better than 2.4.17
base

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Bosko Radivojevic]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Erik Mouw wrote:

> Some time ago Linus made the important observation that we shouldn't
> tune the scheduler for SMP systems simply because 99.9% of the systems
> in the world running linux have a single CPU. IMHO an equally well
> observation would be that we shouldn't tune the VM for the 0.1% of the
> systems in this world that run large DMBSes. The 99.9% majority is much
> more important.

There is a way to fulfill both needs. If my systems are part of that 0.1%,
I have to disagree with you. :)

There is no way to make one good VM for all possible situations. But, you
can tune/make one VM to work great on large DBMS (e.g.) and tune/make
another one to work great on ordinary desktop systems (playing mp3s & co).
So, add different VMs as kernel-config options. The 'default' one should
be VM for 99.9% users. Everybody happy? :)

Greetings

vm philosophising

[Rik van Riel]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Bosko Radivojevic wrote:

> There is no way to make one good VM for all possible situations. But,
> you can tune/make one VM to work great on large DBMS (e.g.) and
> tune/make another one to work great on ordinary desktop systems

This is an interesting assertion ... but up to date nobody has
been able to tell me what exactly should be different between
these two mythical VMs ;)

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: vm philosophising

[Matthew Johnson]

> This is an interesting assertion ... but up to date nobody has
> been able to tell me what exactly should be different between
> these two mythical VMs ;)
>

Well what is the different requirements for desktop use versus, the server in 
terms of virtual memory? What I am doing on my system with MP3's playing, 
running Xfree86 on a SuSE 7.3 system will be different from a server running 
DMBS's.

Another issue, would it be possible to select one or the other VM's like you 
do for example the CPU type? 

Kind regards,

Mayy

Re: vm philosophising

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Matthew Johnson wrote:

> > This is an interesting assertion ... but up to date nobody has
> > been able to tell me what exactly should be different between
> > these two mythical VMs ;)
>
> Well what is the different requirements for desktop use versus, the
> server in terms of virtual memory?

That's a good question ....

> What I am doing on my system with MP3's playing, running Xfree86 on a
> SuSE 7.3 system will be different from a server running DMBS's.

.... especially because I haven't seen any suggestion on
how these different workloads would get translated into
different VM requirements.

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: vm philosophising

[Ryan Cumming]

On January 17, 2002 20:58, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Well what is the different requirements for desktop use versus, the server
> in terms of virtual memory? What I am doing on my system with MP3's
> playing, running Xfree86 on a SuSE 7.3 system will be different from a
> server running DMBS's.

So, your argument basically boils down to "the differences will be that it's, 
well, different." Please do us a favour and never join a debating team of any 
sort.

-Ryan

Re: vm philosophising

[Matthew Johnson]

> So, your argument basically boils down to "the differences will be that
> it's, well, different." Please do us a favour and never join a debating
> team of any sort.
>

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed or something? Geez, try and help 
then get flamed by a troll for your efforts...Plus the fact I was not even 
arguing! I was asking questions...

Further, I was postulating to see what the differences (or indeed 
similarities) are between the VM's to cope with desktop use vs server use. 
No-one seems to know right now.

How does one test the VM precisley? Sorry for the ignorance on this subject.
 
Kind regards,

Matt
PS If you're going to reply with a childish, unproffessional remark do us all 
a favor and be quiet. If I say something stupid and nobody replies I get the 
hint usually.

Re: vm philosophising

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Matthew Johnson wrote:

> How does one test the VM precisley? Sorry for the ignorance on this subject.

Having been active doing just that, I have been triggering my favorite bad
behaviour and trying to evaluate which (if either) makes the system run
better, as defined by both measurements and "feel."

The two problems I have been seeing are (1) load with low to moderate
memory, and (2) sudden i/o bursts freezing the system when doing large
writes (CD image creation).

My test for #1 is simple, I compile the 2.4.16 stock kernel after booting
with mem=64m or mem=128m options. I have a batch of files to hack into
something I can post, and I ran on an Athlon 1400 and dual Celeron 500
system, so I have moderate UP and SMP machines of similar performance when
full memory is used. I compile with:
  make clean; make dep
  make bzImage modules MAKE='make -j7'

I took all these numbers with the intent of posting, but the runs finished
at 0630 this morning and I haven't the time yet. Gut feeling is that
17-rmap-11c works better under small memory, 18pre2aa2 was better when
creating CD images on the Athlon, ran out of time for the SMP.

Neither crashed, hung, or caused the OOM to commit procedural genocide,
which plain 2.4.17 does. the -aa kernel was also tested with my own patch
for intermediate disk loads, I will post when I'm sure it's actually
better by enough to matter. I believe the extra tuning in -aa allows
better large i/o performance if you match bdflush to your load.

Chech large i/o by sync() followed by a fast CD build from wav files, on
fast disk. When the disk light come on hard, grab a window and try to wave
it around, or change X virtual desktops. Chances are that you will get bad
to nil response if you have fast disk and CPU. I get a whole 600MB in
memory before the light comes on :-(

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: vm philosophising

[Matthew Johnson]

On Thursday 17 January 2002 09:18 pm, Ryan Cumming wrote:
> On January 17, 2002 20:58, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Well what is the different requirements for desktop use versus, the
> > server in terms of virtual memory? What I am doing on my system with
> > MP3's playing, running Xfree86 on a SuSE 7.3 system will be different
> > from a server running DMBS's.

Slight typo In last line, should read "What am I" not "What I am" perhaps 
this lead to some confusion. Shouldn't write to this list after driving for 
almost 12 hours :).

Matt

Re: vm philosophising

[Tommy Faasen]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:02AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Bosko Radivojevic wrote:
> 
> > There is no way to make one good VM for all possible situations. But,
> > you can tune/make one VM to work great on large DBMS (e.g.) and
> > tune/make another one to work great on ordinary desktop systems
> 
> This is an interesting assertion ... but up to date nobody has
> been able to tell me what exactly should be different between
> these two mythical VMs ;)
> 
I have no clue about VM's but I can imagine that for example the following situations have different requirements:
1-Desktop: many "small" apps, I believe exe's remain in memory and data is written to disk? Anyway I can imagine fragmentation and latency is an issue here.
2-DBMS: 1 or 2 big programs which sometimes even do their own memory management.Fragmentation and latency isn't issue here I think however moving ltos of data to and from swap is.
3-Webserver: for example apache with many childs being created under high load and killed under low load. The data is always small (in case of static pages). So a lot of small swaps? Latency is not as much as un issue but I can imagine that fragmentation can be an issue?

I think these 3 situations behave very differently, but then again it's just what I think. I can also imagine that more situations are possible but not many.
I also indictated that we have a few parameters we can optimise for like latency, fragmentation and moving a lot small chunks, or occasionally 1 big chunk.

I know from an AI perspective that optimize for 3 different parameters is difficult.
> regards,
> 
> Rik
> -- 
> "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
>     -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
> 
> http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: vm philosophising

[listmail]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Tommy Faasen wrote:


> I have no clue about VM's but I can imagine that for example the following situations have different requirements:
> 1-Desktop: many "small" apps, I believe exe's remain in memory and data is written to disk? Anyway I can imagine fragmentation and latency is an issue here.
> 2-DBMS: 1 or 2 big programs which sometimes even do their own memory management.Fragmentation and latency isn't issue here I think however moving ltos of data to and from swap is.
> 3-Webserver: for example apache with many childs being created under high load and killed under low load. The data is always small (in case of static pages). So a lot of small swaps? Latency is not as much as un issue but I can imagine that fragmentation can be an issue?

There is another situation to consider which I think more typical in the
"Real World"

4 - The Typical Web server Environment, in many many companies that I have
seen.
  The machine runs both the DBMS(mysql, Oracle, etc) and the web server
Apache.  Therefore a balence of memory use needs to be struck between the
two applications.  Then ususally the system also has a development
environment at the ready incase changes need to be made quickly from the
console.  While this may not be true as things scale up for a business and
functions get separated to different machines.  Many startups and small
businesses that I have worked with that have turned to LINUX for the OS
becuase the TCO, it offers over the other guys, tend to have just that
single does everything box.

-Bill

Re: vm philosophising

[The Doctor What]

* Tommy Faasen (faasen@xs4all.nl) [020118 08:47]:
> 2-DBMS: 1 or 2 big programs which sometimes even do their own
> memory management.Fragmentation and latency isn't issue here I
> think however moving ltos of data to and from swap is.

A lot of times a DBMS is bulit that way because they assume they
know better than the OS designer how memory should be managed.  Same
reason they usually use raw writting the the drive instead of using
the OS calls.

Is this right or fair?  I don't know.   But it does imply that if a
VM or FS layer for an OS performs well enough, that a DBM system
might be built that would be built to take advantage of the OS's VM
and FS layer.

Ciao!

-- 
"When you have to shoot, shoot! Don't talk."
		--Tuco (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly)

The Doctor What: Kaboom!                         http://docwhat.gerf.org/
docwhat@gerf.org                                                   KF6VNC

Re: vm philosophising

[Mike Harrold]

> 
> * Tommy Faasen (faasen@xs4all.nl) [020118 08:47]:
> > 2-DBMS: 1 or 2 big programs which sometimes even do their own
> > memory management.Fragmentation and latency isn't issue here I
> > think however moving ltos of data to and from swap is.
> 
> A lot of times a DBMS is bulit that way because they assume they
> know better than the OS designer how memory should be managed.  Same
> reason they usually use raw writting the the drive instead of using
> the OS calls.

Actually this isn't true. DBMS usually handle their own memory because
everything is done in blocks of the same size. Since this is configured
as part of the DBMS' parameters, it is much better at handling this
than the OS ever could be, once it has garnered the original memory
from the OS. Remember, this space is normally shared memory as well.

As for the FS, DBMS' prefer raw devices for consistency issues (as
well as speed). Raw devices prevent the use of the kernel's internal
buffers for files (thus reducing the number of memory copies involved).

/Mike

Re: vm philosophising

[Mr. Shannon Aldinger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Bosko Radivojevic wrote:
>
> > There is no way to make one good VM for all possible situations. But,
> > you can tune/make one VM to work great on large DBMS (e.g.) and
> > tune/make another one to work great on ordinary desktop systems
>
> This is an interesting assertion ... but up to date nobody has
> been able to tell me what exactly should be different between
> these two mythical VMs ;)
>
I can see two different "VMs". I say "VMs" because it could be the same
code with different magic numbers to control its behavior.

>From a file & database point of view throughput is the most crictical
aspect. Both disk and network throughput. Interactive response on such
systems isn't as critical as most of the time it will sit there processing
queries or sending files.

>From a desktop point of view interactive response is critical, however
disk and network throughput also have to have a fine balance. Maybe the
balance is three way here between interactive response, disk throughput
and network throughput.

Perhaps having a VM system that you select your main focus server vs
desktop would be the way to go. Also the end-user should be able to adjust
this balance. Say a person selected desktop, and is a graphic artist, they
may not care as much about network thoroughput and rather push up
interactive response and disk throughput at the expense of the network
thoroughput.

Regards.
PS: IANAVMP (I Am Not A VM Programmer)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjxIRZAACgkQwtU6L/A4vVDUTQCdG4Pg4hYGPvRXN9kBVfDyWBbD
bnsAnigMlPA21izLJUhKjZcTeeaaK9IC
=EKri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: vm philosophising

[Oliver Xymoron]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Bosko Radivojevic wrote:
>
> > There is no way to make one good VM for all possible situations. But,
> > you can tune/make one VM to work great on large DBMS (e.g.) and
> > tune/make another one to work great on ordinary desktop systems
>
> This is an interesting assertion ... but up to date nobody has
> been able to tell me what exactly should be different between
> these two mythical VMs ;)

There is another VM that has a property that people would like:
deterministically handling memory exhaustion. Unfortunately, that VM
probably can't co-exist with over-commit and the performance gains that
affords.

-- 
 "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."

Re: vm philosophising

[Alan Cox]

> There is another VM that has a property that people would like:
> deterministically handling memory exhaustion. Unfortunately, that VM
> probably can't co-exist with over-commit and the performance gains that
> affords.

It can definitely co-exist. Overcommit control is just a book keeping
exercise on address space commits.

Re: vm philosophising

[David Schwartz]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:23:47 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox wrote:

>Overcommit control is just a book keeping
>exercise on address space commits.

	A bookkeeping technique developed by Arthur Anderson.

	DS

Re: vm philosophising

[Alan Cox]

> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:23:47 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> >Overcommit control is just a book keeping
> >exercise on address space commits.
> 
> 	A bookkeeping technique developed by Arthur Anderson.

Hardly, and for many workloads its actually a very good thing to do. Of
course there is always a small mostly theoretical risk of doing an Enron

RE: vm philosophising

[David Luyer]

Alan Cox wrote:
> > There is another VM that has a property that people would like:
> > deterministically handling memory exhaustion. Unfortunately, that VM
> > probably can't co-exist with over-commit and the 
> performance gains that
> > affords.
> 
> It can definitely co-exist. Overcommit control is just a book keeping
> exercise on address space commits.

And that's a _definitely_; other OS's have done it.  Digital Unix, for
one,
on the basis of a file called 'swapdefault', swapped between overcommit
and precommit modes.  I was rather disappointed when I first tried to
enable overcommit mode on Solaris 2.x (where 'x' was probably somewhere
around 4) and searched for quite some time before giving up and deciding
it wasn't a tunable option...

Although I've never actually deliberately run a system in precommit
mode,
it always used to be the first thing to "fix" on a Digital Unix box, and
when I discovered Solaris had the same "flaw" my suggestion was to move
the affected applications (large applications which fork before exec'ing
or fork short lived-children, at around 1/2Gb+ each, which should just
be short-lived COW shared mappings and not exhaust memory) to Linux.

And while precommit may be something people ask for, I'd have to say
many
of them would, having experienced the difference on identical hardware,
then realise what a bad idea it was and go back to the current mode.
That is, it sounds like a big waste of time to implement the
'traditional'
behaviour which Linux is already so much better than.

David.
--
David Luyer                                     Phone:   +61 3 9674 7525
Network Manager                P A C I F I C    Fax:     +61 3 9699 8693
Pacific Internet (Australia)  I N T E R N E T   Mobile:  +61 4 1111 BYTE
http://www.pacific.net.au/                      NASDAQ:  PCNTF

Re: vm philosophising

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 18 January 2002 11:42 pm, David Luyer wrote:

> And while precommit may be something people ask for, I'd have to say
> many
> of them would, having experienced the difference on identical hardware,
> then realise what a bad idea it was and go back to the current mode.
> That is, it sounds like a big waste of time to implement the
> 'traditional'
> behaviour which Linux is already so much better than.
>
> David.

Precommit basically just asks the application to die when it first allocates 
memory if it's even possible for it to die in the most pathlogical usage case 
of that memory.

I.E. "die up front" instead of "die while running".  (There's no possible way 
this can improve performance.  If you want to never swap, just don't mount a 
swap partition.)  You don't even have to change the VM's behavior, it can 
still copy on write and such.  You just add a test to cause allocations to 
fail unnecessarily at times.

Throwing in a little extra code on mmaps and allocations to kill a process 
wouldn't be too hard.  It would be stupid outside of something like a 
financial transaction system (and probably even in there), but it technically 
shouldn't be all that hard to do.

Unless I missed something...?

Rob

Re: vm philosophising

[Stevie O]

Why don't we all follow the MSCommit method of VM? We simply allocate 99% 
of physical RAM for cache and other non-userspace purposes, and whenever an 
application needs memory, pop up a message:
         printk("Your system is out of virtual memory. Linux is increasing 
your virtual memory size. During this time, memory allocation requests may 
fail.\n");

Then spend a few minutes doing hard disk I/O, while exposing bugs in 
programs that don't check to make sure that malloc succeeded.


;)



--
Stevie-O

Real programmers use COPY CON PROGRAM.EXE

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> I read here:
>
> 	http://linux.html.it/articoli/rik_van_riel_ita1.htm
>
> This is total bullshit.

> PS. I know the interviewer and he's usually very accurate, so I don't
> think this could be a misunderstanding where you say one thing and
> they writer another one just to create troubles.

1) the journalist may be good, but his english was far from
   fluent, there was some confusion at times during the
   interview

2) the interview was done quite informally on IRC, with me
   replying in normal IRC style  ...  it appears however
   that the sentence fragments were just cut'n'pasted
   together into something gramatically dubious, this has
   messed up the contents in some places ;)

3) I guess this whole stuff was converted to gramatically
   correct Italian, possibly meaning something slightly
   different from the text in (2), definately something
   else than what I wanted to say.

I guess this is the last time I'm giving an interview to a
journalist who isn't fluent in any of the languages I'm
fluent in ;)

cheers,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> 1) the journalist may be good, but his english was far from
>    fluent, there was some confusion at times during the
>    interview
> 
> 2) the interview was done quite informally on IRC, with me
>    replying in normal IRC style  ...  it appears however
>    that the sentence fragments were just cut'n'pasted
>    together into something gramatically dubious, this has
>    messed up the contents in some places ;)
> 
> 3) I guess this whole stuff was converted to gramatically
>    correct Italian, possibly meaning something slightly
>    different from the text in (2), definately something
>    else than what I wanted to say.

Then... 

What did you want to say exactly?

Why aren't you rushing out to provide corrections?

What are you waiting for?


Nicolas

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> Then...
>
> What did you want to say exactly?
>
> Why aren't you rushing out to provide corrections?
>
> What are you waiting for?

It's just an article, it's just this week.

Next week people will be all upset about the next
block io layer flamewar or maybe the politicians
will have time again for the next round of DMCA.

I'm not a good writer, by the time I'd have written
any correction or follow-up people would have mostly
forgotten this thing anyway.

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Stephan von Krawczynski]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:45:24 -0200 (BRST)
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > Then...
> >
> > What did you want to say exactly?
> >
> > Why aren't you rushing out to provide corrections?
> >
> > What are you waiting for?
> 
> It's just an article, it's just this week.
> 
> Next week people will be all upset about the next
> block io layer flamewar or maybe the politicians
> will have time again for the next round of DMCA.
> 
> I'm not a good writer, by the time I'd have written
> any correction or follow-up people would have mostly
> forgotten this thing anyway.

Wrong century, Rik.
Google is your friend.

But anyway, hope we all have learned something.

Regards,
Stephan

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Andrea Scrimieri]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> 1) the journalist may be good, but his english was far from
>    fluent, there was some confusion at times during the
>    interview

This email is just to let you all know that the original interview was the
english one. I published it as it was in my IRC log, without correcting
any grammatical/syntactical error, removing emoticons, changing any word.



> 2) the interview was done quite informally on IRC, with me
>    replying in normal IRC style  ...  it appears however
>    that the sentence fragments were just cut'n'pasted
>    together into something gramatically dubious, this has
>    messed up the contents in some places ;)

Rik, I asked you to choose between an email or IRC interview, you chose
IRC, so from that moment if you used an informal language, it was out
of my job. If you aren't able to take your responsabilities for your
actions or words, this probably means you're not enough mature to be a
maintainer. If you are sure to be a victim, publish your logs, i'll be
happy to publish mine.



> 3) I guess this whole stuff was converted to gramatically
>    correct Italian, possibly meaning something slightly
>    different from the text in (2), definately something
>    else than what I wanted to say.

The interview was translated to italian by a highly qualified person.
Anyway, both italian and english interviews are on the web, i'm sure
Andrea, or whoever, will be happy to tell you if anything was changed.


Best regards,
Andrea Scrimieri

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Andrea Scrimieri wrote:

> > 2) the interview was done quite informally on IRC, with me
> >    replying in normal IRC style  ...  it appears however
> >    that the sentence fragments were just cut'n'pasted
> >    together into something gramatically dubious, this has
> >    messed up the contents in some places ;)
>
> Rik, I asked you to choose between an email or IRC interview, you chose
> IRC, so from that moment if you used an informal language, it was out
> of my job. If you aren't able to take your responsabilities for your
> actions or words,

I'm willing to take full responsability for what I mean,
not for other people's interpretations of my words.

It seems IRC isn't a good medium to do interviews so I
won't do that again.

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Andrea Scrimieri]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Andrea Scrimieri wrote:
>
> > > 2) the interview was done quite informally on IRC, with me
> > >    replying in normal IRC style  ...  it appears however
> > >    that the sentence fragments were just cut'n'pasted
> > >    together into something gramatically dubious, this has
> > >    messed up the contents in some places ;)
> >
> > Rik, I asked you to choose between an email or IRC interview, you chose
> > IRC, so from that moment if you used an informal language, it was out
> > of my job. If you aren't able to take your responsabilities for your
> > actions or words,
>
> I'm willing to take full responsability for what I mean,
> not for other people's interpretations of my words.

For the last time, i didn't change the interview text or cut anything. If
you want to continue throwing shit to me because you are not responsible
of your words, please publish the logs.  I'm beginning to get tired of
sentences like: "That assumes it is my assertion, it appears the
journalist in question is missing a few lines from his IRC log though...".
That's not true.

If you saw some differences beetween my version an yours, why didn't you
tell me that? Maybe because in reality there were not? This controversy is
started almost 2 days after the publishing of the article. If lies or
inaccuracies would be written on it you'd have all the time you needed to
tell me. You started to affirm that there were cuts only after the first
Andrea's email. Please be fair and get your own resposibilities.


>
> It seems IRC isn't a good medium to do interviews so I
> won't do that again.

You chose IRC, I don't.

Regards,

Andrea

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Andrea Scrimieri wrote:

> > I'm willing to take full responsability for what I mean,
> > not for other people's interpretations of my words.
>
> For the last time, i didn't change the interview text or cut anything.
> If you want to continue throwing shit to me because you are not

Which part of "to interprete" do you not understand ?

Interpreting my text is reading it and building a
meaning for the words in your head. It doesn't mean
the text needs to be changed ... the meaning can be
different for each person reading the exact same
words.

I guess this is why politicians are very careful to
not attach any meaning at all to their words, however
I'm a programmer, not a politician ;)

> > It seems IRC isn't a good medium to do interviews so I
> > won't do that again.
>
> You chose IRC, I don't.

And that was my mistake, indeed.

I think you're reading things into my words that I
didn't want to put there.

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Alan Cox]

> And that was my mistake, indeed.
> 
> I think you're reading things into my words that I
> didn't want to put there.

Rik - bury this for good. Tell the world what you did mean to port there

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Trever L. Adams]

On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Which part of "to interprete" do you not understand ?
> 
> Interpreting my text is reading it and building a
> meaning for the words in your head. It doesn't mean
> the text needs to be changed ... the meaning can be
> different for each person reading the exact same
> words.


To an extant anyone is responsible for how another takes (interprets)
what they say.  Culture is that combined collection of knowledge of the
human race.  It is your responsibility as a human to be as clear as
possible (within reason).

Were you that clear?  It seems not, but I don't know.  Just don't say
you have no responsibility for how others take what you say, because
that is just dog crap.  No communication or collaboration would ever
take place if we all had that attitude. (It most likely couldn't take
place, let alone wouldn't.)

Trever Adams

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[brian]

Let us not forget about 'deconstructionism':

    deconstructionism -- (a philosophical theory of criticism ...
    that seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work
    by delving below its surface meaning)

It doesn't even matter what Rik thinks he wrote.  The real meaning is
what *we*, the readers, can devolve from his writings.

8-)

- Brian Litzinger <brian@worldcontrol.com>

> On Thu, 2002-01-17 at 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Which part of "to interprete" do you not understand ?
> > 
> > Interpreting my text is reading it and building a
> > meaning for the words in your head. It doesn't mean
> > the text needs to be changed ... the meaning can be
> > different for each person reading the exact same
> > words.


On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:41:02PM -0500, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> To an extant anyone is responsible for how another takes (interprets)
> what they say.  Culture is that combined collection of knowledge of the
> human race.  It is your responsibility as a human to be as clear as
> possible (within reason).
> 
> Were you that clear?  It seems not, but I don't know.  Just don't say
> you have no responsibility for how others take what you say, because
> that is just dog crap.  No communication or collaboration would ever
> take place if we all had that attitude. (It most likely couldn't take
> place, let alone wouldn't.)

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Stephen Satchell]

At 10:38 PM 1/16/02 -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
>I guess this is the last time I'm giving an interview to a
>journalist who isn't fluent in any of the languages I'm
>fluent in ;)

As a journalist I would also say that you shouldn't use IRC for the 
interview medium.  I once tried to do an interview using the "talk" 
facility on CompuServe and capture the conversation to floppy disk.  (Easy 
for me to do with Professional YAM.)  I ended up repeating the interview in 
electronic mail because when I fact-checked the interview it turned out 
that the guy didn't stick to the same story throughout the interview.  The 
e-mail interview was much more coherent.

Some people just don't think well on their feet.  Some reporters try to 
take advantage of it.

Satch

Re: Rik spreading bullshit about VM

[Alan Cox]

> If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM into their kernels that's either a
> political decision or they're not good enough at the VM. I can tell you

If you want to insult the Red Hat people please don't do it from a SuSE
address. There are some great people at SuSE and I somehow doubt you speak
for the management or major stockholders (ibm etc)

When Red Hat shipped 7.2 the -aa vm didn't even exist. It was 2.4.7 era -
so the choices were Rik's stuff half missing and mangled by Linus versus
Riks stuff proper (2.4.7-ac). The latter passed QA the formed choked and died.
The same basically applied for the 2.4.9 based errata - combined with
a desire to reduce unneeded change, because paying corporate customers want
certainly not neat toys. Shipping 2.4.10 to customers would have been
pretty irresponsible when it seems that in some cases even things like
fsync() didnt actually work. The O_DIRECT security bug with /dev alone I
think justified that caution.

When we tested 2.4.17 during evaluation we found it 20% slower on many I/O
heavy workloads. I don't know if -aa ever got that far in QA testing. 
I do know 2.4.17+rmap11* passes Cerberus.

>From my own testing 2.4.18pre3-aa does pretty well, its better than the
2.4.17 base until you get high loads then it gets ugly. Clearly it has a
lot of things right.

At the moment both 2.4.18pre+rmap and -aa are better than base 2.4.18pre3,
so its in your interest to actually send Marcelo the changes one at a time
with explanations to get 2.4.18 better and better, and with luck find which
change is causing the horribly heavy swap behaviour and "0 order allocation
failed" cases along the way.

Alan

clarification about redhat and vm

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:26:07PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM into their kernels that's either a
> > political decision or they're not good enough at the VM. I can tell you
> 
> If you want to insult the Red Hat people please don't do it from a SuSE
> address. There are some great people at SuSE and I somehow doubt you speak
> for the management or major stockholders (ibm etc)

do you plan to sue me as well? :)

"If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat
cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between
the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping
2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP
benchmark".

I think it's fair enough to say that if you plan to keep shipping 2.4.9
VM with all its troubles like I understood yesterday (starting from VM
highmem deadlocks, to kswapd looping into ZONE_DMA etc..., swap storms
throwing the realistic SAP benchmark to /dev/null) that was not usable
on long uptimes on big DBMS with several gigabytes of ram.

Somebody else also complained me about this saying that from what I said
it looks like the -aa VM is the best thing possible which is obviously
not true. In such two lines I said -aa VM just to go short. The -aa VM
in 2.4.18pre2aa2 is obviously certainly not the best that you can make
and I suggest everybody to try to make things better and invent and try
new algorithm etc...  that is just the best compromise that _I_ could
make so far. So it is obvious if anybody doesn't use the -aa VM in
2.4.18pre2aa2 it doesn't mean he doesn't understand about VM.  as far I
can tell rmap could be an order of magnitude better of -aa VM in
2.4.18pre2aa2, it's just I didn't checked it yet (because of all the non
obvious implication the rmap design adds, see DaveM emails of one year
back to linux-mm). All my wondering in my previous email was between
2.4.9 VM with all its known troubles and a sane version of the current
vm like in 2.4.18pre2aa2. So about the past and the present, not about
the present and the future. I thought it was obvious from the context of
the email. I said this in two lines and apparently RedHat didn't like
it, I'm sorry, but quite frankly I think that was quite fair enough, at
least with this additional clarification added.

Andrea

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:26:07PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM into their kernels that's either a
> > > political decision or they're not good enough at the VM. I can tell you
> >
> > If you want to insult the Red Hat people please don't do it from a SuSE
> > address. There are some great people at SuSE and I somehow doubt you speak
> > for the management or major stockholders (ibm etc)
>
> do you plan to sue me as well? :)
>
> "If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat
> cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between
> the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping
> 2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP
> benchmark".

Redhat's 2.4.9 is about as close to 2.4.9 as your 2.4.18-aa is
to 2.4.17.

If you want to judge Redhat by vanilla 2.4.9, I guess we should
start judging -aa based on measuring 2.4.17 ;)

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Alan Cox]

> "If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat
> cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between
> the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping
> 2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP
> benchmark".

The RH VM is totally unrelated to the crap in 2.4.9 vanilla. The SAP comment
begs a question. 2.4.10 seems to have problems remembering to actually 
do fsync()'s. How much of your SAP benchmark is from fsync's that dont
happen ? Do you get the same values with 2.4.18-aa ?

Alan

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:17:21PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> The RH VM is totally unrelated to the crap in 2.4.9 vanilla. The SAP comment
> begs a question. 2.4.10 seems to have problems remembering to actually 
> do fsync()'s. How much of your SAP benchmark is from fsync's that dont
> happen ? Do you get the same values with 2.4.18-aa ?

AFIK the bench was not with 2.4.10 (not that I remeber any missing fsync
anyways, actually MS_ASYNC is broken and this is fixed between in
18pre2aa2 from Andrew Morton, but that was broken in 2.4.[79] too). The
bench in 2.2 was delivering much better performance than with 2.4 (I
don't recall the exact number) and 2.2 definitely is not missing fsync
etc...  furthmore the 2.2 numbers were reproducible. the benchmark swaps
heavily shm etc... and the 2.4.[79] vm was collapsing at the second pass
(I think first throughput was 5 then 1 1 1 1), if you swapout always the
wrong part and you start trashing because of unbalance of aging it is
very easy to make a x10 difference in the final numbers. I think a sane
vm should run faster than 2.2 and to be reproducible as 2.2. I tend to
like such test, also because it is a real life test (unlike what
somebody thought). The huge regression in such test was one of the main
reasons that made me to realize the brokeness of the vm algorithms.

Andrea

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Wilhelm Nuesser]

Alan Cox wrote:

>>"If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat
>>cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between
>>the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping
>>2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP
>>benchmark".
>>
>
>The RH VM is totally unrelated to the crap in 2.4.9 vanilla. The SAP comment
>begs a question. 2.4.10 seems to have problems remembering to actually 
>do fsync()'s. How much of your SAP benchmark is from fsync's that dont
>happen ? Do you get the same values with 2.4.18-aa ?
>
Well, basically we checked the thing many times with quite different 
kernels.
Our current tests - which show exactly the same results as 
2.4.[10,14,15] - run
on the new "official" SuSE kernel 2.4.16.  Again, we  observe a 
performance increase
in high swap situations of about  a factor of ten compared to 2.4.[7,9].
 
IMO, this shows that errors like fsync etc. are _not_ responsible for 
the improved
performance.


But of course, we will check the newer kernels as well.  I think we 
could live with another
factor of ten ...

Best regards
    Willi

-----------------------

   Willi Nüßer
    SAP LinuxLab

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 05:46:33PM +0100, Wilhelm Nuesser wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> >>"If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat
> >>cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between
> >>the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping
> >>2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP
> >>benchmark".
> >>
> >
> >The RH VM is totally unrelated to the crap in 2.4.9 vanilla. The SAP comment
> >begs a question. 2.4.10 seems to have problems remembering to actually 
> >do fsync()'s. How much of your SAP benchmark is from fsync's that dont
> >happen ? Do you get the same values with 2.4.18-aa ?
> >
> Well, basically we checked the thing many times with quite different 
> kernels.
> Our current tests - which show exactly the same results as 
> 2.4.[10,14,15] - run
> on the new "official" SuSE kernel 2.4.16.  Again, we  observe a 
> performance increase
> in high swap situations of about  a factor of ten compared to 2.4.[7,9].
>  
> IMO, this shows that errors like fsync etc. are _not_ responsible for 
> the improved
> performance.

and I assume you were using either ext2 or reiserfs anyways, so the
fsync problem never affected you since the first place (also with older
kernels) I believe.

Andrea

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Christoph Rohland]

Hi Andrea,

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> and I assume you were using either ext2 or reiserfs anyways, so the
> fsync problem never affected you since the first place (also with
> older kernels) I believe.

It was done on ext2 _and_ against raw devices. Same dendency on both
setups.

Further on I doubt the test is very depended on fsync. It should be
swap io limited since it runs with a way too small memory
configuration.

If you have enough memory the test is not very IO intensive either
despite the fact that a big database is running. To bring the database
really into IO you have to add application servers. (Fujitsu Siemens
took 160 4way Linux servers to saturate a database server running
Solaris on 64way FSC Primepower.)

BTW since we are just bashing VMs: I always hear that 2.2 is so much
better: The first 2.2 kernel which could really survive this test was
2.2.19!

Greetings
		Christoph

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Alan Cox]

> BTW since we are just bashing VMs: I always hear that 2.2 is so much
> better: The first 2.2 kernel which could really survive this test was
> 2.2.19!

That I can believe. With the exception of the dcache balancing problem the
2.2.19/20 VM basically eliminated all 2.2 bug reports on VM behaviour.

Alan

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 01:54:04PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > BTW since we are just bashing VMs: I always hear that 2.2 is so much
> > better: The first 2.2 kernel which could really survive this test was
> > 2.2.19!
> 
> That I can believe. With the exception of the dcache balancing problem the
> 2.2.19/20 VM basically eliminated all 2.2 bug reports on VM behaviour.

can you reproduce the dcache problem with this patch applied?

	ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.2/2.2.20aa1/00_inode-boot-dynamic-3

The grow of the dcache in 2.2 is bound to the grow of the icache which
is not dynamic in 2.2. (modulo hardlinks but I don't think the guy was
using hardlinks)

Andrea

Re: clarification about redhat and vm

[Willi Nüßer]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > "If redhat doesn't use the -aa VM " was a short form of "if redhat
> > cannot see the goodness of all the bugfixing work that happened between
> > the 2.4.9 VM and any current branch 2.4, and so if they keep shipping
> > 2.4.9 VM as the best one for DBMS and critical VM apps like the SAP
> > benchmark".
> 
> The RH VM is totally unrelated to the crap in 2.4.9 vanilla. The SAP comment
> begs a question. 2.4.10 seems to have problems remembering to actually
> do fsync()'s. How much of your SAP benchmark is from fsync's that dont
> happen ? Do you get the same values with 2.4.18-aa ?


Well, basically we checked the thing many times with quite different
kernels.
Our current tests - which show exactly the same results as
2.4.[10,14,15] - run
on the new "official" SuSE kernel 2.4.16.  Again, we  observe a
performance increase
in high swap situations of about a factor of ten compared to 2.4.[7,9].
 
IMO, this shows that errors like fsync etc. are _not_ responsible for
the improved
performance.  

But of course, we will check the newer kernels as well.  I think we
could live 
with another factor of ten ...



-- 
Best regards
Willi

-----------------------------------
Willi Nuesser
SAP Linuxlab