From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [MMTests] Stress high-order allocations on ext3
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:20:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120723212003.GF9222@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de>
Configuration: global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3
Benchmarks: kernbench vmr-stream sysbench stress-highalloc
Summary
=======
Allocation success rates of huge pages were looking great until 3.4 when
they dropped through the floor.
Benchmark notes
===============
All machines were booted with mem=4096M due to limitations of the test
This is an old series of benchmarks that stressed anti-fragmentation
and the allocation of huge pages. It is being replaced with other series
of tests which will be more representative but it still produces some
interesting results. I tend to use these results as an early warning
system before doing a more detailed series of tests.
Only the results from the stress-highalloc benchmark are actually of
interest and the other benchmarks are just there to age the machine
in terms of fragmentation.
===========================================================
Machine: arnold
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3/arnold/comparison.html
Arch: x86
CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads
Model: Pentium 4
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
===========================================================
stress-highalloc
----------------
Generally this is going in the right direction. High-order allocations
are reasonably successful and where they drop, they have been matched
by a large reduction in the length of time it takes to complete the test.
Success rates in 3.4 did drop sharply though.
==========================================================
Machine: hydra
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3/hydra/comparison.html
Arch: x86-64
CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads
Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
==========================================================
stress-highalloc
----------------
Until 3.4, this was looking good. Unfortunately in 3.4 there was a massive
drop in success rates. This correlates with the removal of lumpy reclaim
which compaction indirectly depended upon. This strongly indicates that
enough memory is not being reclaimed for compaction to make forward
progress or compaction is being disabled routinely due to failed attempts
at compaction.
The success rates at the end of the test when the machine is idle are
still high implying that anti-fragmentation itself is still working
as expected.
==========================================================
Machine: sandy
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3/sandy/comparison.html
Arch: x86-64
CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads
Model: Intel Core i7-2600
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
==========================================================
Same as hydra, this was looking good until 3.4 and then success rates dropped
through the floor.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [MMTests] Stress high-order allocations on ext3
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:20:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120723212003.GF9222@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de>
Configuration: global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3
Benchmarks: kernbench vmr-stream sysbench stress-highalloc
Summary
=======
Allocation success rates of huge pages were looking great until 3.4 when
they dropped through the floor.
Benchmark notes
===============
All machines were booted with mem=4096M due to limitations of the test
This is an old series of benchmarks that stressed anti-fragmentation
and the allocation of huge pages. It is being replaced with other series
of tests which will be more representative but it still produces some
interesting results. I tend to use these results as an early warning
system before doing a more detailed series of tests.
Only the results from the stress-highalloc benchmark are actually of
interest and the other benchmarks are just there to age the machine
in terms of fragmentation.
===========================================================
Machine: arnold
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3/arnold/comparison.html
Arch: x86
CPUs: 1 socket, 2 threads
Model: Pentium 4
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
===========================================================
stress-highalloc
----------------
Generally this is going in the right direction. High-order allocations
are reasonably successful and where they drop, they have been matched
by a large reduction in the length of time it takes to complete the test.
Success rates in 3.4 did drop sharply though.
==========================================================
Machine: hydra
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3/hydra/comparison.html
Arch: x86-64
CPUs: 1 socket, 4 threads
Model: AMD Phenom II X4 940
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
==========================================================
stress-highalloc
----------------
Until 3.4, this was looking good. Unfortunately in 3.4 there was a massive
drop in success rates. This correlates with the removal of lumpy reclaim
which compaction indirectly depended upon. This strongly indicates that
enough memory is not being reclaimed for compaction to make forward
progress or compaction is being disabled routinely due to failed attempts
at compaction.
The success rates at the end of the test when the machine is idle are
still high implying that anti-fragmentation itself is still working
as expected.
==========================================================
Machine: sandy
Result: http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/mmtests-20120424/global-dhp__stress-highalloc-performance-ext3/sandy/comparison.html
Arch: x86-64
CPUs: 1 socket, 8 threads
Model: Intel Core i7-2600
Disk: Single Rotary Disk
==========================================================
Same as hydra, this was looking good until 3.4 and then success rates dropped
through the floor.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-23 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-20 11:32 MMTests 0.04 Mel Gorman
2012-06-20 11:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:21 ` [MMTests] Page allocator Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:21 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:22 ` [MMTests] Network performance Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:22 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:23 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:23 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:24 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:24 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:25 ` [MMTests] IO metadata on XFS Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:25 ` Mel Gorman
2012-06-29 11:25 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-01 23:54 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-02 6:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 14:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 19:35 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-03 0:19 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 10:59 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 11:44 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-03 12:31 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:08 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:28 ` Eugeni Dodonov
2012-07-03 13:28 ` Eugeni Dodonov
2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-04 0:47 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 9:51 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 13:04 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-03 14:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-02 13:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:52 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:52 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:53 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:53 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:53 ` [MMTests] Page reclaim performance on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-04 15:53 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-05 14:56 ` [MMTests] Interactivity during IO on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-05 14:56 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-10 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-10 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2012-07-10 11:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-10 11:30 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-05 14:57 ` [MMTests] Interactivity during IO on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-05 14:57 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:12 ` [MMTests] Scheduler Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:12 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:13 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:13 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-24 2:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-24 2:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-24 8:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-24 8:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-24 8:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-24 8:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-23 21:14 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:14 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:15 ` [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:15 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:17 ` [MMTests] memcachetest and parallel IO on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:17 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:19 ` [MMTests] memcachetest and parallel IO on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:20 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2012-07-23 21:20 ` [MMTests] Stress high-order allocations on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:21 ` [MMTests] dbench4 async " Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:21 ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-16 14:52 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-16 14:52 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-21 22:00 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-21 22:00 ` Jan Kara
2012-08-22 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2012-08-22 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:23 ` [MMTests] dbench4 async on ext4 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:23 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:24 ` [MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:24 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:25 ` [MMTests] Threaded IO Performance on xfs Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:25 ` Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:25 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120723212003.GF9222@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.