On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:12:51 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > == These numbers are stable to some extent.== > > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2: (Limit: 800M) > > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run: > > Elapsed Time 358.933---------------------------(*) > > User Time 1069.63 > > System Time 140.667 > > Percent CPU 337.333 > > Context Switches 220821 > > Sleeps 196912 > > > > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 + throttle (Limit:800M) > > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run: > > Elapsed Time 266.697---------------------------(*) > > User Time 1105.39 > > System Time 124.423 > > Percent CPU 471.667 > > Context Switches 251797 > > Sleeps 231038 > > > > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 + throttle + High/Low watermark. > > (low:750M High:780M Limit:800M) > > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run: > > Elapsed Time 266.844---------------------------(*) > > User Time 1112.9 > > System Time 112.273 > > Percent CPU 473.667 > > Context Switches 251795 > > Sleeps 220339 > > == > > > > Looks good to me, was there any impact on memory.failcnt? > This version o patch doesn't care it. (I'll fix.) I just wanted to ask someone has (another) throttling patch or idea. > > Seems throttling reclaim has some good effect (for kernbench). > > Does anyone have an idea for throttling reclaiming of memory controller ? > > > > In the past I've run workloads of apache+geronimo+open trade, I've run > linear sequential memory access tests, kernbench, lmbench, database > benchmarks (DOTS, pgbench, etc). I think Lee Schermerhorn has a very > interesting setup (that I need to learn to replicate). > Ok, thanks. I will reflesh and post new one. Regards -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers