From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:32:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1343118731.7412.72.camel@marge.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120724081903.GL9222@suse.de>
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 09:19 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:29:29AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 22:13 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > The backing database was postgres.
> >
> > FWIW, that wouldn't have been my choice. I don't know if it still does,
> > but it used to use userland spinlocks to achieve scalability.
>
> The tests used to support mysql but the code bit-rotted and eventually
> got deleted. I'm not going to get into a mysql vs postgres discussion on
> which is better :O
>
> Were you thinking of mysql or something else as an alternative?
> Completely different test?
Which db is under the hood doesn't matter much, but those spinlocks got
me thinking.
> > Turning
> > your CPUs into space heaters to combat concurrency issues makes a pretty
> > flat graph, but probably doesn't test kernels as well as something that
> > did not do that.
> >
>
> I did not check the source, but even if it is true then your comments only
> applies to testing scalability of locking. If someone really cares to check,
> the postgres version was 9.0.4. However, even if they are using user-space
> locking, the test is still useful for looking at the IO performance,
> page reclaim decisions and so on.
I was thinking while you're spinning in userspace, you're not giving the
kernel decisions to make. But you're right. If they didn't have
spinning locks, they'd have sleeping locks. With spinning locks they
can be less smart I suppose.
-Mike
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [MMTests] Sysbench read-only on ext3
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:32:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1343118731.7412.72.camel@marge.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120724081903.GL9222@suse.de>
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 09:19 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:29:29AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 22:13 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > The backing database was postgres.
> >
> > FWIW, that wouldn't have been my choice. I don't know if it still does,
> > but it used to use userland spinlocks to achieve scalability.
>
> The tests used to support mysql but the code bit-rotted and eventually
> got deleted. I'm not going to get into a mysql vs postgres discussion on
> which is better :O
>
> Were you thinking of mysql or something else as an alternative?
> Completely different test?
Which db is under the hood doesn't matter much, but those spinlocks got
me thinking.
> > Turning
> > your CPUs into space heaters to combat concurrency issues makes a pretty
> > flat graph, but probably doesn't test kernels as well as something that
> > did not do that.
> >
>
> I did not check the source, but even if it is true then your comments only
> applies to testing scalability of locking. If someone really cares to check,
> the postgres version was 9.0.4. However, even if they are using user-space
> locking, the test is still useful for looking at the IO performance,
> page reclaim decisions and so on.
I was thinking while you're spinning in userspace, you're not giving the
kernel decisions to make. But you're right. If they didn't have
spinning locks, they'd have sleeping locks. With spinning locks they
can be less smart I suppose.
-Mike
--
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:[~2012-07-24 8:32 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 [this message]
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 ` [MMTests] Stress high-order allocations on ext3 Mel Gorman
2012-07-23 21:20 ` 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=1343118731.7412.72.camel@marge.simpson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
/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.