On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:35:08PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > 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? I just run the test with the base tree and with this patch series applied(head), I didn't use trace-cmd this time. The throughput for base tree is 963MB/s while the head is 815MB/s, I have attached pagetypeinfo/proc-vmstat/perf-profile for them.
Attachment:
base.tar
Description: Unix tar archive
Attachment:
head.tar
Description: Unix tar archive