This was formerly the series "Improve sequential read throughput" which
noted some major differences in performance of tiobench since 3.0. While
there are a number of factors, two that dominated were the introduction
of the fair zone allocation policy and changes to CFQ.
The behaviour of fair zone allocation policy makes more sense than tiobench
as a benchmark and CFQ defaults were not changed due to insufficient
benchmarking.
This series is what's left. It's one functional fix to the fair zone
allocation policy when used on NUMA machines and a reduction of overhead
in general. tiobench was used for the comparison despite its flaws as an
IO benchmark as in this case we are primarily interested in the overhead
of page allocator and page reclaim activity.
On UMA, it makes little difference to overhead
3.16.0-rc3 3.16.0-rc3
vanilla lowercost-v5
User 383.61 386.77
System 403.83 401.74
Elapsed 5411.50 5413.11
On a 4-socket NUMA machine it's a bit more noticable
3.16.0-rc3 3.16.0-rc3
vanilla lowercost-v5
User 746.94 802.00
System 65336.22 40852.33
Elapsed 27553.52 27368.46
include/linux/mmzone.h | 217 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
include/trace/events/pagemap.h | 16 ++-
mm/page_alloc.c | 122 ++++++++++++-----------
mm/swap.c | 4 +-
mm/vmscan.c | 7 +-
mm/vmstat.c | 9 +-
6 files changed, 198 insertions(+), 177 deletions(-)
--
1.8.4.5
--
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>