On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I see. I'm always not good at testing. :( > > 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. OK. Thanks for the notes! > >> 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 -- Thanks, Sha -- 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>