On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:03:52 -0800 Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We ran some netperf comparisons measuring the overhead of enabling > CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM with a kmem limit. Short answer: no regression seen. > > This is a multiple machine (client,server) netperf test. Both client > and server machines were running the same kernel with the same > configuration. > > A baseline run (with CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM unset) was compared with a full > featured run (CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM=y and a kmem limit large enough not to > put additional pressure on the workload). We saw no noticeable > regression running: > - TCP_CRR efficiency, latency > - TCP_RR latency, rate > - TCP_STREAM efficiency, throughput > - UDP_RR efficiency, latency > The tests were run with a varying number of concurrent connections > (between 1 and 200). > > The source came from one of Glauber's branches > (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/glommer/memcg > kmemcg-slab): > commit 70506dcf756aaafd92f4a34752d6b8d8ff4ed360 > Author: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Aug 16 17:16:21 2012 +0400 > > Add slab-specific documentation about the kmem controller > > It's not the latest source, but I figured the data might still be > useful. Let's cc the netdev guys, who will be pleased to hear that we didn't break their stuff for once ;) Thanks for testing - it was a concern. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>