Hello. On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 08:21:49AM -0800, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Do you have any numbers to share? The numbers are in bko#216038, let me explain them here a bit. I used the will-it-scale benchmark that repeatedly locks/unlocks a file and runs in parallel. The final numbers were: sample metric δ δ_cg no accounting implemented 32307750 0 % accounting in cg 2.49577e+07 -23 % 0 % accounting in cg + cache 2.51642e+07 -22 % +1 % Hence my result was only 1% improvement. (But it was a very simple try, not delving into any of the CPU cache statistics.) Question: Were your measurements multi-threaded? > 1) some people periodically complain that accounted allocations are slow > in comparison to non-accounted and slower than they were with page-based > accounting, My result above would not likely satisfy those complainers I know about. But if your additional changes are better the additional code complexity may be justified in the end. > Btw, I'm working on a patch 3 for this series, which in early tests brings > additional ~25% improvement in my benchmark, hopefully will post it soon as > a part of v1. Please send it with more details about your benchmark to put the numbers into context. Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
