Re: [PATCHv13 3/4] zswap: add to mm/

From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
Date: Fri Jun 21 2013 - 14:36:43 EST


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 08:20:34AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: Bob Liu [mailto:lliubbo@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv13 3/4] zswap: add to mm/
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Seth Jennings
> > <sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 05:42:04PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> > >> > Just made a mmtests run of my own and got very different results:
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> It's strange, I'll update to rc6 and try again.
> > >> By the way, are you using 824 hardware compressor instead of lzo?
> > >
> > > My results where using lzo software compression.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, and today I used another machine to test zswap.
> > The total ram size of that machine is around 4G.
> > This time the result is better:
> > rc6 rc6
> > zswap base
> > Ops memcachetest-0M 14619.00 ( 0.00%) 15602.00 ( 6.72%)
> > Ops memcachetest-435M 14727.00 ( 0.00%) 15860.00 ( 7.69%)
> > Ops memcachetest-944M 12452.00 ( 0.00%) 11812.00 ( -5.14%)
> > Ops memcachetest-1452M 12183.00 ( 0.00%) 9829.00 (-19.32%)
> > Ops memcachetest-1961M 11953.00 ( 0.00%) 9337.00 (-21.89%)
> > Ops memcachetest-2469M 11201.00 ( 0.00%) 7509.00 (-32.96%)
> > Ops memcachetest-2978M 9738.00 ( 0.00%) 5981.00 (-38.58%)
> > Ops io-duration-0M 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> > Ops io-duration-435M 10.00 ( 0.00%) 6.00 ( 40.00%)
> > Ops io-duration-944M 19.00 ( 0.00%) 19.00 ( 0.00%)
> > Ops io-duration-1452M 31.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 16.13%)
> > Ops io-duration-1961M 40.00 ( 0.00%) 35.00 ( 12.50%)
> > Ops io-duration-2469M 45.00 ( 0.00%) 43.00 ( 4.44%)
> > Ops io-duration-2978M 58.00 ( 0.00%) 53.00 ( 8.62%)
> > Ops swaptotal-0M 56711.00 ( 0.00%) 8.00 ( 99.99%)
> > Ops swaptotal-435M 19218.00 ( 0.00%) 2101.00 ( 89.07%)
> > Ops swaptotal-944M 53233.00 ( 0.00%) 98055.00 (-84.20%)
> > Ops swaptotal-1452M 52064.00 ( 0.00%) 145624.00 (-179.70%)
> > Ops swaptotal-1961M 54960.00 ( 0.00%) 153907.00 (-180.03%)
> > Ops swaptotal-2469M 57485.00 ( 0.00%) 176340.00 (-206.76%)
> > Ops swaptotal-2978M 77704.00 ( 0.00%) 182996.00 (-135.50%)
> > Ops swapin-0M 24834.00 ( 0.00%) 8.00 ( 99.97%)
> > Ops swapin-435M 9038.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> > Ops swapin-944M 26230.00 ( 0.00%) 42953.00 (-63.76%)
> > Ops swapin-1452M 25766.00 ( 0.00%) 68440.00 (-165.62%)
> > Ops swapin-1961M 27258.00 ( 0.00%) 68129.00 (-149.94%)
> > Ops swapin-2469M 28508.00 ( 0.00%) 82234.00 (-188.46%)
> > Ops swapin-2978M 37970.00 ( 0.00%) 89280.00 (-135.13%)
> > Ops minorfaults-0M 1460163.00 ( 0.00%) 927966.00 ( 36.45%)
> > Ops minorfaults-435M 954058.00 ( 0.00%) 936182.00 ( 1.87%)
> > Ops minorfaults-944M 972818.00 ( 0.00%) 1005956.00 ( -3.41%)
> > Ops minorfaults-1452M 966597.00 ( 0.00%) 1035465.00 ( -7.12%)
> > Ops minorfaults-1961M 976158.00 ( 0.00%) 1049441.00 ( -7.51%)
> > Ops minorfaults-2469M 967815.00 ( 0.00%) 1051752.00 ( -8.67%)
> > Ops minorfaults-2978M 988712.00 ( 0.00%) 1034615.00 ( -4.64%)
> > Ops majorfaults-0M 5899.00 ( 0.00%) 9.00 ( 99.85%)
> > Ops majorfaults-435M 2684.00 ( 0.00%) 67.00 ( 97.50%)
> > Ops majorfaults-944M 4380.00 ( 0.00%) 5790.00 (-32.19%)
> > Ops majorfaults-1452M 4161.00 ( 0.00%) 9222.00 (-121.63%)
> > Ops majorfaults-1961M 4435.00 ( 0.00%) 8800.00 (-98.42%)
> > Ops majorfaults-2469M 4555.00 ( 0.00%) 10541.00 (-131.42%)
> > Ops majorfaults-2978M 6182.00 ( 0.00%) 11618.00 (-87.93%)
> >
> >
> > But the performance of the first machine I used whose total ram size
> > is 2G is still bad.
> > I need more time to summarize those testing results.
> >
> > Maybe you can also have a try with lower total ram size.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > --Bob
>
>
> A very important factor that you are not considering and
> that might account for your different results is the
> "initial conditions". For example, I always ran my benchmarks
> after a default-configured EL6 boot, which launches many services
> at boot time, each of which creates many anonymous pages,
> and these "service anonymous pages" are often the pages
> that are selected by LRU for swapping, and compressed by zcache/zswap.
> Someone else may run the benchmarks on a minimally-configured
> embedded system, and someone else on a single-user system
> with no services running at all. A single-user system with
> no services is often best for reproducing benchmark results but
> may not be at all representative of the real world.


Right. And interestingly enough the kernbench recommends
that model so that it is easier to reproduce.

>
> At a minimum, it would be good to always record "Active(anon)"
> and "Inactive(anon)" in addition to the amount of physical
> RAM in the system. (Note, in /proc/meminfo on my system,
> the sum of these don't add up to "AnonPages"... I'm not sure
> why.)
>
> And of course, even if the number of anonymous pages is
> the same, the _contents_ of those pages may be very different,
> which will affect zcache/zswap density which may have
> a large impact on benchmark results.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan (T-minus two weeks and counting)
>
--
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/