On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 06:15:40AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Some of some relevant user of the project:
>
> KVM Virtualization
> GCC (kernel build included, requires a few liner patch to enable)
> JVM
> VMware Workstation
> HPC
>
> It would be great if it could go in -mm.
>
I ran some basic performance tests comparing base pages, hugetlbfs and
transparent huge pages.
STREAM (triad only)
Triad--17.0 18955.94 ( 0.00%) 18955.94 ( 0.00%) 18955.94 ( 0.00%)
Triad--17.33 19756.78 ( 0.00%) 19756.78 ( 0.00%) 19808.90 ( 0.26%)
Triad--17.66 19918.20 ( 0.00%) 19918.20 ( 0.00%) 19918.20 ( 0.00%)
Triad--18.0 19303.15 ( 0.00%) 19687.37 ( 1.95%) 19199.75 (-0.54%)
Triad--18.33 18397.44 ( 0.00%) 18556.45 ( 0.86%) 18443.83 ( 0.25%)
Triad--18.66 18917.43 ( 0.00%) 19088.28 ( 0.90%) 18865.09 (-0.28%)
Triad--19.0 16338.07 ( 0.00%) 18794.78 (13.07%) 16380.81 ( 0.26%)
Triad--19.33 11402.08 ( 0.00%) 11387.21 (-0.13%) 11226.44 (-1.56%)
Triad--19.66 9654.13 ( 0.00%) 9516.96 (-1.44%) 9666.16 ( 0.12%)
Triad--20.0 9556.79 ( 0.00%) 9572.48 ( 0.16%) 9573.63 ( 0.18%)
Triad--20.33 9553.81 ( 0.00%) 9524.22 (-0.31%) 9552.19 (-0.02%)
Triad--20.66 9504.67 ( 0.00%) 9504.67 ( 0.00%) 9509.61 ( 0.05%)
Triad--21.0 9500.04 ( 0.00%) 9538.13 ( 0.40%) 9501.06 ( 0.01%)
Triad--21.33 9355.53 ( 0.00%) 9511.82 ( 1.64%) 9391.13 ( 0.38%)
Triad--21.66 9310.97 ( 0.00%) 9535.04 ( 2.35%) 9459.83 ( 1.57%)
Triad--22.0 9264.88 ( 0.00%) 9521.61 ( 2.70%) 9512.85 ( 2.61%)
Triad--22.33 9197.81 ( 0.00%) 9505.28 ( 3.23%) 9442.67 ( 2.59%)
Triad--22.66 8535.29 ( 0.00%) 8965.94 ( 4.80%) 8839.97 ( 3.45%)
Triad--23.0 7158.25 ( 0.00%) 7462.07 ( 4.07%) 7373.10 ( 2.91%)
Triad--23.33 5659.50 ( 0.00%) 5708.15 ( 0.85%) 5695.34 ( 0.63%)
Triad--23.66 5191.97 ( 0.00%) 5200.99 ( 0.17%) 5175.16 (-0.32%)
Triad--24.0 4960.82 ( 0.00%) 5038.79 ( 1.55%) 5017.61 ( 1.13%)
Triad--24.33 4734.72 ( 0.00%) 4767.03 ( 0.68%) 4752.25 ( 0.37%)
Triad--24.66 4694.59 ( 0.00%) 4687.10 (-0.16%) 4698.72 ( 0.09%)
Triad--25.0 4701.91 ( 0.00%) 4823.23 ( 2.52%) 4759.94 ( 1.22%)
Triad--25.33 4664.94 ( 0.00%) 4748.64 ( 1.76%) 4690.97 ( 0.55%)
Triad--25.66 4670.35 ( 0.00%) 4751.30 ( 1.70%) 4706.59 ( 0.77%)
Triad--26.0 4704.77 ( 0.00%) 4814.09 ( 2.27%) 4788.46 ( 1.75%)
Triad--26.33 4702.14 ( 0.00%) 4707.05 ( 0.10%) 4677.77 (-0.52%)
Triad--26.66 4668.22 ( 0.00%) 4682.79 ( 0.31%) 4671.49 ( 0.07%)
Triad--27.0 4728.34 ( 0.00%) 4807.55 ( 1.65%) 4794.87 ( 1.39%)
Triad--27.33 4722.43 ( 0.00%) 4765.43 ( 0.90%) 4757.13 ( 0.73%)
Triad--27.66 4721.08 ( 0.00%) 4748.82 ( 0.58%) 4748.01 ( 0.57%)
Triad--28.0 4720.13 ( 0.00%) 4804.78 ( 1.76%) 4792.87 ( 1.52%)
Triad--28.33 4685.32 ( 0.00%) 4674.07 (-0.24%) 4627.00 (-1.26%)
Triad--28.66 4689.31 ( 0.00%) 4690.17 ( 0.02%) 4654.35 (-0.75%)
Triad--29.0 4740.42 ( 0.00%) 4780.69 ( 0.84%) 4779.78 ( 0.82%)
Triad--29.33 4688.10 ( 0.00%) 4655.82 (-0.69%) 4722.80 ( 0.73%)
Triad--29.66 4719.65 ( 0.00%) 4670.27 (-1.06%) 4768.32 ( 1.02%)
Triad--30.0 4731.50 ( 0.00%) 4786.19 ( 1.14%) 4773.81 ( 0.89%)
Triad--30.33 4722.82 ( 0.00%) 4734.01 ( 0.24%) 4748.29 ( 0.54%)
Triad--30.66 4732.06 ( 0.00%) 4721.55 (-0.22%) 4733.16 ( 0.02%)
Triad--31.0 4756.53 ( 0.00%) 4784.76 ( 0.59%) 4767.52 ( 0.23%)
I didn't include the other operations because the results are comparable
each time. Broadly speaking, hugetlbfs does slightly better but
transparent huge pages did improve performance a small amount.
SYSBENCH
threads base huge transhuge
1 18629.91 ( 0.00%) 19017.23 ( 2.04%) 18766.30 ( 0.73%)
2 29691.39 ( 0.00%) 30062.81 ( 1.24%) 29808.59 ( 0.39%)
3 39824.00 ( 0.00%) 40324.75 ( 1.24%) 40002.75 ( 0.45%)
4 67639.65 ( 0.00%) 69231.83 ( 2.30%) 68305.58 ( 0.97%)
5 66833.81 ( 0.00%) 68339.77 ( 2.20%) 67393.01 ( 0.83%)
6 66168.22 ( 0.00%) 67875.52 ( 2.52%) 67255.45 ( 1.62%)
7 65775.08 ( 0.00%) 67386.93 ( 2.39%) 66208.60 ( 0.65%)
8 64899.14 ( 0.00%) 66588.38 ( 2.54%) 65367.80 ( 0.72%)
In some ways this is more interesting. hugetlbfs is backing only the
shared memory segment where transhuge is promoting other areas. Hence,
it's not really a like-with-like comparison but still, transparent
hugepages is pushing up performance by a small amount.
NAS-SER C Class (time, lower is better)
base huge-heap transhuge
bt.C 1389.33 ( 0.00%) 1421.64 (-2.27%) 1315.75 ( 5.59%)
cg.C 561.27 ( 0.00%) 509.38 (10.19%) 562.71 (-0.26%)
ep.C 375.78 ( 0.00%) 376.69 (-0.24%) 371.86 ( 1.05%)
ft.C 374.43 ( 0.00%) 371.73 ( 0.73%) 341.87 ( 9.52%)
is.C 17.84 ( 0.00%) 18.80 (-5.11%) 18.49 (-3.52%)
lu.C 1655.91 ( 0.00%) 1668.52 (-0.76%) 1662.25 (-0.38%)
mg.C 134.28 ( 0.00%) 136.96 (-1.96%) 128.04 ( 4.87%)
sp.C 1214.57 ( 0.00%) 1261.40 (-3.71%) 1151.98 ( 5.43%)
ua.C 1070.87 ( 0.00%) 1115.73 (-4.02%) 1048.45 ( 2.14%)
This is more of a like-with-like comparison as hugetlbfs is only backing
the heap. Results were mixed. Sometimes hugetlbfs was better and other times
transhuge was THP won the majority of the time.
SPECjvm huge page comparison
base huge transhuge
compiler 145.54 ( 0.00%) 156.00 ( 6.71%) 156.23 ( 6.84%)
compress 168.07 ( 0.00%) 175.15 ( 4.04%) 174.83 ( 3.87%)
crypto 164.30 ( 0.00%) 157.16 (-4.54%) 156.39 (-5.06%)
derby 53.64 ( 0.00%) 68.71 (21.93%) 58.57 ( 8.42%)
mpegaudio 81.80 ( 0.00%) 94.29 (13.25%) 92.58 (11.64%)
scimark.large 22.97 ( 0.00%) 21.43 (-7.19%) 21.59 (-6.39%)
scimark.small 119.25 ( 0.00%) 122.10 ( 2.33%) 121.44 ( 1.80%)
serial 46.93 ( 0.00%) 46.83 (-0.21%) 47.65 ( 1.51%)
sunflow 47.49 ( 0.00%) 50.03 ( 5.08%) 48.51 ( 2.10%)
xml 206.17 ( 0.00%) 211.42 ( 2.48%) 212.77 ( 3.10%)
hugetlbfs edged out transparent hugepages the majority of the times but
broadly speaking they were comparable in terms of performance.
Bottom-line is that overall transparent hugepages is delivering the expected
performance for this range of workloads at least. It's generally not as
good as hugetlbfs in terms of raw performance but that is hardly a surprise
considering how they both operate and what their objectives are.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>