Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans -- vm bugfixes

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Wed May 02 2007 - 05:15:43 EST


Nick Piggin wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:


There were concerns that we could do this more cheaply, but I think it
is important to start with a base that is simple and more likely to
be correct and build on that. My testing didn't show any obvious
problems with performance.



I don't see _problems_ with performance, but I do consistently see the
same kind of ~5% degradation in lmbench fork, exec, sh, mmap latency
and page fault tests on SMP, several machines, just as I did last year.


OK. I did run some tests at one stage which didn't show a regression
on my P4, however I don't know that they were statistically significant.
I'll try a couple more runs and post numbers.

I didn't have enough time tonight to get means/stddev, etc, but the runs
are pretty stable.

Patch tested was just the lock page one.

SMP kernel, tasks bound to 1 CPU:

P4 Xeon
pagefault fork exec
2.6.21 1.67-1.69 140.7-142.0 449.5-460.8
+patch 1.75-1.77 144.0-145.5 456.2-463.0

So it's taken on nearly 5% on pagefault, but looks like less than 2% on
fork, so not as bad as your numbers (phew).

G5
pagefault fork exec
2.6.21 1.49-1.51 164.6-170.8 741.8-760.3
+patch 1.71-1.73 175.2-180.8 780.5-794.2

Bigger hit there.

Page faults can be improved a tiny bit by not using a test and clear op
in unlock_page (less barriers for the G5).

I don't think that's really a blocker problem for a merge, but I wonder
what we can do to improve it. Lockless pagecache shaves quite a bit of
straight line find_get_page performance there.

Going to a non-sleeping lock might be one way to go in the long term, but
it would require quite a lot of restructuring.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/