Re: MAP_SHARED bizarrely slow

[David Gibson]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 01:06:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> James Cloos <cloos@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "David" == David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > David> http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson/maptest.tar.gz
> > 
> > David> On a number of machines I've tested - both ppc64 and x86 - the
> > David> SHARED version is consistently and significantly (50-100%)
> > David> slower than the PRIVATE version.
> > 
> > Just gave it a test on my laptop and server.  Both are p3.  The
> > laptop is under heavier mem pressure; the server has just under
> > a gig with most free/cache/buff.  Laptop is still running 2.6.7
> > whereas the server is bk as of 2004-10-24.
> > 
> > Buth took about 11 seconds for the private and around 30 seconds
> > for the shared tests.
> > 
> 
> I get the exact opposite, on a P4:
> 
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap 
> ./mm-sharemmap  10.81s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 10.855 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap
> ./mm-sharemmap  11.04s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 11.086 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap 
> ./mm-privmmap  26.91s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.903 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap
> ./mm-privmmap  26.89s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.894 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> uname -a
> Linux vmm 2.6.10-rc1-mm1 #14 SMP Tue Oct 26 23:23:23 PDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

How very odd.  I've now understood what was happening (see other
post), but I'm not sure what could reverse the situation.  Can you
download the test tarball again - I've put up an updated version which
pretouches the pages and gives some extra info.  Running it both with
and without pretouch would be interesting (#if 0/1 in matmul.h to
change).

> It's all user time so I can think of no reason apart from physical page
> allocation order causing additional TLB reloads in one case.  One is using
> anonymous pages and the other is using shmem-backed pages, although I can't
> think why that would make a difference.
> 
> 
> Let's back out the no-buddy-bitmap patches:
> 
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap 
> ./mm-sharemmap  12.01s user 0.06s system 99% cpu 12.087 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-sharemmap
> ./mm-sharemmap  12.56s user 0.05s system 100% cpu 12.607 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap 
> ./mm-privmmap  26.74s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 26.776 total
> vmm:/home/akpm/maptest> time ./mm-privmmap
> ./mm-privmmap  26.66s user 0.02s system 100% cpu 26.674 total
> 
> much the same.
> 
> Backing out "[PATCH] tweak the buddy allocator for better I/O merging" from
> June 24 makes no difference.
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
				| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/