On Thu 01-08-13 19:43:22, Sha Zhengju wrote: [...] > Some perforcemance numbers got by Mel's pft test (On a 4g memory and 4-core > i5 CPU machine): I am little bit confused what is this testcase actually testing... AFAIU it produces a lot of page faults but they are all anonymous and very short lived. So neither dirty nor writeback accounting is done. I would have expected a testcase which generates a lot of IO. Also as a general note. It would be better to mention the number of runs and standard deviation so that we have an idea about variability of the load. > vanilla : memcg enabled, patch not applied > patched : all patches are patched > > * Duration numbers: > vanilla patched > User 385.38 379.47 > System 65.12 66.46 > Elapsed 457.46 452.21 > > * Summary numbers: > vanilla: > Clients User System Elapsed Faults/cpu Faults/sec > 1 0.03 0.18 0.21 931682.645 910993.850 > 2 0.03 0.22 0.13 760431.152 1472985.863 > 3 0.03 0.29 0.12 600495.043 1620311.084 > 4 0.04 0.37 0.12 475380.531 1688013.267 > > patched: > Clients User System Elapsed Faults/cpu Faults/sec > 1 0.02 0.19 0.22 915362.875 898763.732 > 2 0.03 0.23 0.13 757518.387 1464893.996 > 3 0.03 0.30 0.12 592113.126 1611873.469 > 4 0.04 0.38 0.12 472203.393 1680013.271 > > We can see the performance gap is minor. [...] -- 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>