> >>stress-highalloc > >> 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 > >> 2-thp 3-thp 4-thp 5-thp 6-thp > >>Success 1 Min 2.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 (-250.00%) 18.00 (-800.00%) 19.00 (-850.00%) 26.00 (-1200.00%) > >>Success 1 Mean 19.20 ( 0.00%) 17.80 ( 7.29%) 29.20 (-52.08%) 29.90 (-55.73%) 32.80 (-70.83%) > >>Success 1 Max 27.00 ( 0.00%) 29.00 ( -7.41%) 35.00 (-29.63%) 36.00 (-33.33%) 37.00 (-37.04%) > >>Success 2 Min 3.00 ( 0.00%) 8.00 (-166.67%) 21.00 (-600.00%) 21.00 (-600.00%) 32.00 (-966.67%) > >>Success 2 Mean 19.30 ( 0.00%) 17.90 ( 7.25%) 32.20 (-66.84%) 32.60 (-68.91%) 35.70 (-84.97%) > >>Success 2 Max 27.00 ( 0.00%) 30.00 (-11.11%) 36.00 (-33.33%) 37.00 (-37.04%) 39.00 (-44.44%) > >>Success 3 Min 62.00 ( 0.00%) 62.00 ( 0.00%) 85.00 (-37.10%) 75.00 (-20.97%) 64.00 ( -3.23%) > >>Success 3 Mean 66.30 ( 0.00%) 65.50 ( 1.21%) 85.60 (-29.11%) 83.40 (-25.79%) 83.50 (-25.94%) > >>Success 3 Max 70.00 ( 0.00%) 69.00 ( 1.43%) 87.00 (-24.29%) 86.00 (-22.86%) 87.00 (-24.29%) > >> > >> 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 3.13-rc2 > >> 2-thp 3-thp 4-thp 5-thp 6-thp > >>User 6547.93 6475.85 6265.54 6289.46 6189.96 > >>System 1053.42 1047.28 1043.23 1042.73 1038.73 > >>Elapsed 1835.43 1821.96 1908.67 1912.74 1956.38 > > > >Hello, Vlastimil. > > > >I have some questions related to your stat, not your patchset, > >just for curiosity. :) > > > >Are these results, "elapsed time" and "vmstat", for Success 3 line scenario? > > No that's for the whole test which does the scenarios in succession. > Okay! > >If so, could you show me others? > >I wonder why thp case consumes more system time rather than no-thp case. > > Unfortunately these stats are not that useful as they don't > distinguish the 3 phases and also include what the background load > does. They are included just to show that nothing truly dramatic is > happening. > So > > >And I found that elapsed time has no big difference between both cases, > >roughly less than 2%. In this situation, do we get more benefits with > >aggressive allocation like no-thp case? > > Elapsed time suffers from the same problem, so it's again hard to > say how relevant it actually is to the allocator workload and how > much to background load. It seems that the more successful allocator > is, the longer elapsed time (in both thp and nothp case). My guess > is that less memory available for the background load makes it > progress slower which affects the duration of the test as a whole. > > I hope that in case of further compaction patches that would be > potentially more intrusive to the its design (and not bugfixes and > simple tweaks to the existing design as this series) I will have a > more detailed breakdown of what time is spent where. Okay! Thanks. -- 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>