* VM benchmarks
@ 2004-02-01 23:36 Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-04 15:27 ` Koni
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2004-02-01 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-mm
After playing with the active / inactive list balancing a bit,
I found I can very consistently take 2-3 seconds off a non
swapping kbuild, and the light swapping case is closer to 2.4.
Heavy swapping case is better again. Lost a bit in the middle
though.
http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/4/
At the end of this I might come up with something that is very
suited to kbuild and no good at anything else. Do you have any
other ideas of what I should test?
Nick
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-01 23:36 VM benchmarks Nick Piggin
@ 2004-02-02 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-02 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-04 15:27 ` Koni
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2004-02-02 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: linux-mm
Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
> After playing with the active / inactive list balancing a bit,
> I found I can very consistently take 2-3 seconds off a non
> swapping kbuild, and the light swapping case is closer to 2.4.
> Heavy swapping case is better again. Lost a bit in the middle
> though.
>
> http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/4/
>
> At the end of this I might come up with something that is very
> suited to kbuild and no good at anything else. Do you have any
> other ideas of what I should test?
>
The thing people most seem to complain about is big compilations.
Things like a bitkeeper consistency check while dinking with the X UI have
also been noted, but that's a bit hard to quantify.
Maybe ask Roger to try his efax workload?
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-02 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2004-02-02 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 6:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-02 16:50 ` Roger Luethi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2004-02-02 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-mm
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
>>After playing with the active / inactive list balancing a bit,
>>I found I can very consistently take 2-3 seconds off a non
>>swapping kbuild, and the light swapping case is closer to 2.4.
>>Heavy swapping case is better again. Lost a bit in the middle
>>though.
>>
>>http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/4/
>>
>>At the end of this I might come up with something that is very
>>suited to kbuild and no good at anything else. Do you have any
>>other ideas of what I should test?
>>
>>
>
>The thing people most seem to complain about is big compilations.
>
>Things like a bitkeeper consistency check while dinking with the X UI have
>also been noted, but that's a bit hard to quantify.
>
>Maybe ask Roger to try his efax workload?
>
>
>
efax is a compilation as well. I would be up for trying it, but it
needs quite a lot of GUI dev libraries installed to compile it.
I'll get onto it sometime I suppose, but for now I'll try to leave
my test box unchanged.
Unfortunately starting mozilla / kde / openoffice is another one
people complain about but harder to test...
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-02 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2004-02-02 6:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-02 7:51 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 16:50 ` Roger Luethi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2004-02-02 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin, Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-mm
> efax is a compilation as well. I would be up for trying it, but it
> needs quite a lot of GUI dev libraries installed to compile it.
> I'll get onto it sometime I suppose, but for now I'll try to leave
> my test box unchanged.
>
> Unfortunately starting mozilla / kde / openoffice is another one
> people complain about but harder to test...
Maybe you could just get gentoo to compile the whole distro ;-)
What kind of parallelism are you putting into make?
M.
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-02 6:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2004-02-02 7:51 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2004-02-02 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>efax is a compilation as well. I would be up for trying it, but it
>>needs quite a lot of GUI dev libraries installed to compile it.
>>I'll get onto it sometime I suppose, but for now I'll try to leave
>>my test box unchanged.
>>
>>Unfortunately starting mozilla / kde / openoffice is another one
>>people complain about but harder to test...
>>
>
>Maybe you could just get gentoo to compile the whole distro ;-)
>
>What kind of parallelism are you putting into make?
>
>
On the graph here: http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/4/
the x axis is the -j factor, and I'm compiling a 2.4.21
source with gcc 3.3 booting with mem=64M.
You can see it just starts to swap at -j6 and I'm going up
to -j16 which is then fairly heavy swapping (takes >20minutes).
Another thing that will need looking at is non swapping
pagecache performance of course.
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-02 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 6:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2004-02-02 16:50 ` Roger Luethi
2004-02-02 23:17 ` Nick Piggin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Roger Luethi @ 2004-02-02 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:11:46 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> efax is a compilation as well. I would be up for trying it, but it
The main advantage of efax over kbuild is that it is completely immune
to unfairness. And it used to have a low variance (in 2.4). Other than
that, access patterns are similar enough to make me suspect that gcc
loads are all quite similar.
> needs quite a lot of GUI dev libraries installed to compile it.
>
> I'll get onto it sometime I suppose, but for now I'll try to leave
> my test box unchanged.
You can actually do something like which shouldn't require the
dependencies on the test box:
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.3/cc1plus -fpreprocessed efaxi586.ii \
-quiet -O2 -Wall -fexceptions -frtti -fsigned-char -fno-check-new -o main.s
All you need is the preprocessed code.
I can test a couple of patches I you care, though. Which ones?
Roger
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-02 16:50 ` Roger Luethi
@ 2004-02-02 23:17 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-03 23:16 ` Roger Luethi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2004-02-02 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roger Luethi; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
Roger Luethi wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:11:46 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>efax is a compilation as well. I would be up for trying it, but it
>>
>
>The main advantage of efax over kbuild is that it is completely immune
>to unfairness. And it used to have a low variance (in 2.4). Other than
>that, access patterns are similar enough to make me suspect that gcc
>loads are all quite similar.
>
>
>>needs quite a lot of GUI dev libraries installed to compile it.
>>
>>I'll get onto it sometime I suppose, but for now I'll try to leave
>>my test box unchanged.
>>
>
>You can actually do something like which shouldn't require the
>dependencies on the test box:
>
>/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.3/cc1plus -fpreprocessed efaxi586.ii \
>-quiet -O2 -Wall -fexceptions -frtti -fsigned-char -fno-check-new -o main.s
>
>
Could you zip up the preprocessed file and send it to me if possible
please? (off list of course)
>All you need is the preprocessed code.
>
>
>I can test a couple of patches I you care, though. Which ones?
>
>
I have 3 patches here http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/
that should apply in order. If you apply to the -mm tree, please
back out the rss limit patch first.
If you can test them it would be good.
I would be interested in soon looking at some of your patches in
combination with these.
Nick
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-02 23:17 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2004-02-03 23:16 ` Roger Luethi
2004-02-04 0:13 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Roger Luethi @ 2004-02-03 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:17:57 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I have 3 patches here http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/
> that should apply in order. If you apply to the -mm tree, please
> back out the rss limit patch first.
>
> If you can test them it would be good.
I added results for all 3 patches of yours combined (2.6.1 patched)
and for the reversal patch I posted (2.6.0 revert). Clear improvements
for compiling. Might be interesting to test the patches individually,
but I will likely be unable to conduct further tests til next week. Let
me know if there are any tests you are specifically interested in,
and I will do more testing when I get back.
Roger
kbuild (make -j 24, 64 MB system)
avg
2.4.21 120 101 107 110 112 114 116 128 134 135 143
2.4.23 140.4 116 118 124 125 132 150 153 157 161 168
2.4.25-pre6 161.8 141 145 148 153 155 156 169 173 185 193
pre6-rmap15l 441.8 274 383 387 439 462 464 468 492 500 549
2.6.0 513 387 446 493 498 512 512 546 550 592 594
2.6.1 patched 351.6 304 312 334 345 349 357 359 361 392 403
2.6.0 revert 441 375 408 409 425 429 437 454 461 487 525
efax (one large compile process, 32 MB system)
avg
2.4.21 237.5 234 234 235 236 238 238 238 239 240 243
2.4.23 228.8 227 227 228 229 229 229 229 230 230 230
2.4.25-pre6 229.2 227 228 228 228 229 229 229 230 230 234
pre6-rmap15l 362.7 350 360 362 363 364 364 364 364 367 369
2.6.0 842.9 805 816 833 837 842 842 843 864 871 876
2.6.1 patched 508.3 477 501 511 511 512 513 513 513 516 516
2.6.0 revert 587.7 534 542 545 547 551 570 607 645 646 690
qsbench (-p 4 -m 96, 256 MB system)
avg
2.4.21 222.3 214 217 218 218 219 219 222 229 231 236
2.4.21 221.1 214 216 216 218 219 220 223 224 229 232
2.4.23 223.8 219 220 221 223 223 223 223 225 230 231
2.4.25-pre6 217.2 208 209 210 212 213 213 223 224 226 234
pre6-rmap15l 1261.3 1171 1241 1253 1254 1268 1272 1274 1288 1293 1299
2.6.0 329.3 253 279 281 286 300 355 371 374 388 406
2.6.1 patched 336.8 272 275 277 301 304 375 376 383 383 422
2.6.0 revert 340 302 310 310 315 323 331 352 354 389 414
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-03 23:16 ` Roger Luethi
@ 2004-02-04 0:13 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2004-02-04 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roger Luethi; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
Roger Luethi wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:17:57 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>I have 3 patches here http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/
>>that should apply in order. If you apply to the -mm tree, please
>>back out the rss limit patch first.
>>
>>If you can test them it would be good.
>>
>
>I added results for all 3 patches of yours combined (2.6.1 patched)
>and for the reversal patch I posted (2.6.0 revert). Clear improvements
>for compiling. Might be interesting to test the patches individually,
>but I will likely be unable to conduct further tests til next week. Let
>me know if there are any tests you are specifically interested in,
>and I will do more testing when I get back.
>
>
Thanks Roger,
Hmm results aren't bad... although the active/inactive balance
tuning you see here: http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/4/
isn't included (you're testing the green kernel)
If I can get things a bit more into shape today I'll post another
patchset.
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-01 23:36 VM benchmarks Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2004-02-04 15:27 ` Koni
2004-02-04 15:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Koni @ 2004-02-04 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
It seems to me that increasing -jX doesn't necessarily result in a
linear increase in load since the kernel build process has all kinds of
dependencies and source files distributed in different nested
subdirectories. Thus, it may not be possible for make to spawn X gcc
instances say unless there are at least X independent files to compile
in the directory it's working in. Maybe something about kbuild that I
don't know, I just use make bzImage.
Perhaps it doesn't matter, from the graphs its obvious that you were
able to get the VM to thrash by raising the -jX parameter. Anyway, my
suggestion for something else to test would be to generate a contrived
build where all the source files are in the same directory and the
makefile has no dependencies, just a .c.o rule and a list of files. That
might remove some noise from the -jX variable. Perhaps the efax compile
is more like this, I don't know. Just a thought... might make it easier
to see the effects of small tweaks.
Cheers,
Koni
On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 18:36, Nick Piggin wrote:
> After playing with the active / inactive list balancing a bit,
> I found I can very consistently take 2-3 seconds off a non
> swapping kbuild, and the light swapping case is closer to 2.4.
> Heavy swapping case is better again. Lost a bit in the middle
> though.
>
> http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/vm/4/
>
> At the end of this I might come up with something that is very
> suited to kbuild and no good at anything else. Do you have any
> other ideas of what I should test?
>
> Nick
>
> --
> 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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: VM benchmarks
2004-02-04 15:27 ` Koni
@ 2004-02-04 15:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2004-02-04 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Koni, Nick Piggin; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
> It seems to me that increasing -jX doesn't necessarily result in a
> linear increase in load since the kernel build process has all kinds of
> dependencies and source files distributed in different nested
> subdirectories. Thus, it may not be possible for make to spawn X gcc
> instances say unless there are at least X independent files to compile
> in the directory it's working in. Maybe something about kbuild that I
> don't know, I just use make bzImage.
A full -j on the kernel spawns about 1300 processes constantly on a 16-way,
so there's not too much of a problem there. Make sure you do "make vmlinux"
not "make bzImage" though, as the compression phase is all single-threaded.
There's also a pretty much single-threaded linker phase at the end, which
is unavoidable, but on the whole it scales pretty well.
M.
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-04 15:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-02-01 23:36 VM benchmarks Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-02 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 6:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-02 7:51 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-02 16:50 ` Roger Luethi
2004-02-02 23:17 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-03 23:16 ` Roger Luethi
2004-02-04 0:13 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-04 15:27 ` Koni
2004-02-04 15:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
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.