Re: [RFC] Low overhead patches for the memory cgroup controller(v2)

[Balbir Singh]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-05-18 19:11:07]:

> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:46:39 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-05-16 02:45:03]:
> > 
> > > Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > > Feature: Remove the overhead associated with the root cgroup
> > > >
> > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > This patch changes the memory cgroup and removes the overhead associated
> > > > with LRU maintenance of all pages in the root cgroup. As a side-effect, we
> > > > can
> > > > no longer set a memory hard limit in the root cgroup.
> > > >
> > > > A new flag is used to track page_cgroup associated with the root cgroup
> > > > pages. A new flag to track whether the page has been accounted or not
> > > > has been added as well.
> > > >
> > > > Review comments higly appreciated
> > > >
> > > > Tests
> > > >
> > > > 1. Tested with allocate, touch and limit test case for a non-root cgroup
> > > > 2. For the root cgroup tested performance impact with reaim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 		+patch		mmtom-08-may-2009
> > > > AIM9		1362.93		1338.17
> > > > Dbase		17457.75	16021.58
> > > > New Dbase	18070.18	16518.54
> > > > Shared		9681.85		8882.11
> > > > Compute		16197.79	15226.13
> > > >
> > > Hmm, at first impression, I can't convice the numbers...
> > > Just avoiding list_add/del makes programs _10%_ faster ?
> > > Could you show changes in cpu cache-miss late if you can ?
> > > (And why Aim9 goes bad ?)
> > 
> > OK... I'll try but I am away on travel for 3 weeks :( you can try and run
> > this as well
> > 
> tested aim7 with some config.
> 
> CPU: Xeon 3.1GHz/4Core x2 (8cpu)
> Memory: 32G
> HDD: Usual? Scsi disk (just 1 disk)
> (try_to_free_pages() etc...will never be called.)
> 
> Multiuser config. #of tasks 1100 (near to peak on my host)
> 
> 10runs.
> rc6mm1 score(Jobs/min)
> 44009.1 44844.5 44691.1 43981.9 44992.6
> 44544.9 44179.1 44283.0 44442.9 45033.8  average=44500
> 
> +patch
> 44656.8 44270.8 44706.7 44106.1 44467.6
> 44585.3 44167.0 44756.7 44853.9 44249.4  average=44482
> 
> Dbase config. #of tasks 25
> rc6mm1 score (jobs/min)
> 11022.7 11018.9 11037.9 11003.8 11087.5 
> 11145.2 11133.6 11068.3 11091.3 11106.6 average=11071
> 
> +patch
> 10888.0 10973.7 10913.9 11000.0 10984.9
> 10996.2 10969.9 10921.3 10921.3 11053.1 average=10962
> 
> Hmm, 1% improvement ?
> (I think this is reasonable score of the effect of this patch)
>

Thanks for the test, I have a 4 CPU system and I create 80 users,
larger config shows larger difference at my end. I think even 1% is
quite reasonable as you mentioned. If the patch looks fine, should we
ask for larger testing by Andrew?
 
> Anyway, I'm afraid of difference between mine and your kernel config.
> plz enjoy your travel for now :)

Sorry, I did not send you my .config, why do you think .config makes a
difference? I think loading AIM makes the difference and I also made
one other change to the aim tests. I run with "sync" linked to
/bin/true and use tmpfs for temporary partition and 20*numnber of cpus
for number of users.

If required, I can still send out my .config to you.

-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/