On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:38:50AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 12/03/2015 10:25 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:10:44AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> Aaron, could you try this on your testcase? > > > > The test result is placed at: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4enBkdVFScXhFM0U > > > > For some reason, the patches made the performace worse. The base tree is > > today's Linus git 25364a9e54fb8296837061bf684b76d20eec01fb, and its > > performace is about 1000MB/s. After applying this patch series, the > > performace drops to 720MB/s. > > > > Please let me know if you need more information, thanks. > > Hm, compaction stats are at 0. The code in the patches isn't even running. > Can you provide the same data also for the base tree? My bad, I uploaded the wrong data :-/ I uploaded again: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49uX3igf4K4UFI4TEQ3THYta0E And I just run the base tree with trace-cmd and found that its performace drops significantly(from 1000MB/s to 6xxMB/s), is it that trace-cmd will impact performace a lot? Any suggestions on how to run the test regarding trace-cmd? i.e. should I aways run usemem under trace-cmd or only when necessary? Thanks, Aaron -- 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>