From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752872Ab2F2LTi (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:19:38 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33133 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751895Ab2F2LTh (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:19:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:19:32 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: MMTests 0.04 Message-ID: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de> References: <20120620113252.GE4011@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120620113252.GE4011@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:32:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > MMTests 0.04 is a configurable test suite that runs a number of common > workloads of interest to MM developers. Apparently I never sent a release > note for 0.03 so here is the changelog for both > Using MMTests 0.04 I ran a number of tests between 2.6.32 and 3.4 on three test machines. None of them are particularly powerful but the results are still useful because it's worth knowing how we are doing for some ordinary cases over time. There were 34 test configurations in all taking between 3-5 days to run all the tests for a single kernel. I expect that not all the results will be useful when I look closer but that can be improved. I have not looked at all the results yet and will only talk about the ones I have had a chance to read. I know the presentation is ugly but it was not a high priority to make them very pretty. The analysis is also superficial as it's time consuming to do a full analysis for any of these tests. In general the stats need improving but this is also something that can be improved over time once the raw data can be collected. Right now I tend to look closer at the data when I am trying to narrow a problem down to a specific area or when a regression might have been introduced. When this happens I can usually apply what stats I need manually or rerun the specific test with additional monitoring which is less than ideal for automation. Due to the superficial nature I suggest you take these summaries with a grain of salt and draw your own conclusions. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx170.postini.com [74.125.245.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFB396B005A for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:19:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:19:32 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: MMTests 0.04 Message-ID: <20120629111932.GA14154@suse.de> References: <20120620113252.GE4011@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120620113252.GE4011@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:32:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > MMTests 0.04 is a configurable test suite that runs a number of common > workloads of interest to MM developers. Apparently I never sent a release > note for 0.03 so here is the changelog for both > Using MMTests 0.04 I ran a number of tests between 2.6.32 and 3.4 on three test machines. None of them are particularly powerful but the results are still useful because it's worth knowing how we are doing for some ordinary cases over time. There were 34 test configurations in all taking between 3-5 days to run all the tests for a single kernel. I expect that not all the results will be useful when I look closer but that can be improved. I have not looked at all the results yet and will only talk about the ones I have had a chance to read. I know the presentation is ugly but it was not a high priority to make them very pretty. The analysis is also superficial as it's time consuming to do a full analysis for any of these tests. In general the stats need improving but this is also something that can be improved over time once the raw data can be collected. Right now I tend to look closer at the data when I am trying to narrow a problem down to a specific area or when a regression might have been introduced. When this happens I can usually apply what stats I need manually or rerun the specific test with additional monitoring which is less than ideal for automation. Due to the superficial nature I suggest you take these summaries with a grain of salt and draw your own conclusions. -- 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: email@kvack.org