On Thu 20-06-13 12:12:06, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:09:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > base is mmotm-2013-05-09-15-57 > > baserebase is mmotm-2013-06-05-17-24-63 + patches from the current mmots > > without slab shrinkers patchset. > > reworkrebase all patches 8 applied on top of baserebase > > > > * No-limit > > User > > base: min: 1164.94 max: 1169.75 avg: 1168.31 std: 1.57 runs: 6 > > baserebase: min: 1169.46 [100.4%] max: 1176.07 [100.5%] avg: 1172.49 [100.4%] std: 2.38 runs: 6 > > reworkrebase: min: 1172.58 [100.7%] max: 1177.43 [100.7%] avg: 1175.53 [100.6%] std: 1.91 runs: 6 > > System > > base: min: 242.55 max: 245.36 avg: 243.92 std: 1.17 runs: 6 > > baserebase: min: 235.36 [97.0%] max: 238.52 [97.2%] avg: 236.70 [97.0%] std: 1.04 runs: 6 > > reworkrebase: min: 236.21 [97.4%] max: 239.46 [97.6%] avg: 237.55 [97.4%] std: 1.05 runs: 6 > > Elapsed > > base: min: 596.81 max: 620.04 avg: 605.52 std: 7.56 runs: 6 > > baserebase: min: 666.45 [111.7%] max: 710.89 [114.7%] avg: 690.62 [114.1%] std: 13.85 runs: 6 > > reworkrebase: min: 664.05 [111.3%] max: 701.06 [113.1%] avg: 689.29 [113.8%] std: 12.36 runs: 6 > > > > Elapsed time regressed by 13% wrt. base but it seems that this came from > > baserebase which regressed by the same amount. > > > > boo-urns > > > Page fault statistics tell us at least part of the story: > > Minor > > base: min: 35941845.00 max: 36029788.00 avg: 35986860.17 std: 28288.66 runs: 6 > > baserebase: min: 35852414.00 [99.8%] max: 35899605.00 [99.6%] avg: 35874906.83 [99.7%] std: 18722.59 runs: 6 > > reworkrebase: min: 35538346.00 [98.9%] max: 35584907.00 [98.8%] avg: 35562362.17 [98.8%] std: 18921.74 runs: 6 > > Major > > base: min: 25390.00 max: 33132.00 avg: 29961.83 std: 2476.58 runs: 6 > > baserebase: min: 34224.00 [134.8%] max: 45674.00 [137.9%] avg: 41556.83 [138.7%] std: 3595.39 runs: 6 > > reworkrebase: min: 277.00 [1.1%] max: 480.00 [1.4%] avg: 384.67 [1.3%] std: 74.67 runs: 6 > > Can you try this monolithic patch please? Now that I've tested the patch properly, finally, I have to say that the situation has improved. 0-limit case has a bigger variation with 15% regression in the worst case and down to 4% regression in the best case (which gets us to 7% on average). no-limit configuration behaves better. The worst case is not so bad and we are down to 3% regression in average. * 0-limit User base: min: 1188.28 max: 1198.54 avg: 1194.10 std: 3.31 runs: 6 baserebase: min: 1186.17 [99.8%] max: 1196.46 [99.8%] avg: 1189.75 [99.6%] std: 3.41 runs: 6 mel: min: 1183.62 [99.6%] max: 1208.19 [100.8%] avg: 1194.00 [100.0%] std: 8.71 runs: 6 System base: min: 248.40 max: 252.00 avg: 250.19 std: 1.38 runs: 6 baserebase: min: 240.77 [96.9%] max: 246.74 [97.9%] avg: 243.63 [97.4%] std: 2.23 runs: 6 mel: min: 249.41 [100.4%] max: 253.34 [100.5%] avg: 251.28 [100.4%] std: 1.20 runs: 6 Elapsed base: min: 759.28 max: 805.30 avg: 784.87 std: 15.45 runs: 6 baserebase: min: 881.69 [116.1%] max: 938.14 [116.5%] avg: 911.68 [116.2%] std: 19.58 runs: 6 mel: min: 789.62 [104.0%] max: 928.68 [115.3%] avg: 845.62 [107.7%] std: 59.31 runs: 6 * no-limit User base: min: 1164.94 max: 1169.75 avg: 1168.31 std: 1.57 runs: 6 baserebase: min: 1169.46 [100.4%] max: 1176.07 [100.5%] avg: 1172.49 [100.4%] std: 2.38 runs: 6 mel: min: 1174.58 [100.8%] max: 1176.46 [100.6%] avg: 1175.53 [100.6%] std: 0.59 runs: 6 System base: min: 242.55 max: 245.36 avg: 243.92 std: 1.17 runs: 6 baserebase: min: 235.36 [97.0%] max: 238.52 [97.2%] avg: 236.70 [97.0%] std: 1.04 runs: 6 mel: min: 244.79 [100.9%] max: 246.86 [100.6%] avg: 246.30 [101.0%] std: 0.76 runs: 6 Elapsed base: min: 596.81 max: 620.04 avg: 605.52 std: 7.56 runs: 6 baserebase: min: 666.45 [111.7%] max: 710.89 [114.7%] avg: 690.62 [114.1%] std: 13.85 runs: 6 mel: min: 618.77 [103.7%] max: 637.84 [102.9%] avg: 627.92 [103.7%] std: 6.64 runs: 6 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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>