On 07/19/2013 08:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 07/19/2013 04:38 AM, Raghavendra KT wrote:
While measuring non - PLE performance, one of the bottleneck, I am seeing is
flush tlbs.
perf had helped in alaysing a bit there, but this patch would help
in precise calculation. It will aslo help in tuning the PLE window
experiments (larger PLE window
would affect remote flush TLBs)
Interesting. What workload is that? I've been having problems finding
workloads that are too consumed with TLB flushes.
Dave,
ebizzy is the one. and dbench to some small extent.
[root@codeblue ~]# cat /proc/vmstat |grep nr_tlb ;
/root/data/script/do_ebizzy.sh; cat /proc/vmstat |grep nr_tlb
nr_tlb_remote_flush 721
nr_tlb_remote_flush_received 923
nr_tlb_local_flush_all 13992
nr_tlb_local_flush_one 0
nr_tlb_local_flush_one_kernel 0
7482 records/s
real 120.00 s
user 86.69 s
sys 3746.57 s
nr_tlb_remote_flush 912896
nr_tlb_remote_flush_received 28261974
nr_tlb_local_flush_all 926272
nr_tlb_local_flush_one 0
nr_tlb_local_flush_one_kernel 0
--
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>