5~Hi Khalid, On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 01:27:22PM -0700, Khalid Aziz wrote: > > Block size 3.12 3.12+patch 1 3.12+patch 1,2,3 > > ---------- ---- ------------ ---------------- > > 1M 8467 8114 7648 > > 64K 4049 4043 4175 > > > > Performance numbers with 64K reads look good but there is further > > deterioration with 1M reads. > > > > -- > > Khalid > > Hi Andrea, > > I found that a background task running on my test server had influenced > the performance numbers for 1M reads. I cleaned that problem up and > re-ran the test. I am seeing 8456 MB/sec with all three patches applied, > so 1M number is looking good as well. Good news thanks! 1/3 should go in -mm I think as it fixes many problems. The rest can be applied with less priority and is not as urgent. I've also tried to optimize it further in the meantime as I thought it wasn't fully ok yet. So I could send another patchset. I haven't changed 1/3 and I don't plan changing it. And I kept 3/3 at the end as it's the one with a bit more of complexity than the rest. I basically removed a few more atomic ops for each put_page/get_page for both hugetlbfs and slab, and the important thing is they're zero cost changes for the non-hugetlbfs/slab fast paths so they're probably worth it. -- 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>