From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>, devel@openvz.org, Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>, linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> Subject: RSS controller v2 Test results (lmbench ) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:12 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <464C95D4.7070806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw) Hi, Pavel/Andrew, I've run lmbench on RSS controller v2 with the following patches applied rss-fix-free-of-active-pages.patch rss-fix-nodescan.patch rss-implement-per-container-page-referenced.patch rss-fix-lru-race (NOTE: all of these were posted on lkml) I've used three configurations for testing 1. Container mounted with the RSS controller and the tests started within a container whose RSS is limited to 256 MB 2. Counter mounted, but no limit set 3. Counter not mounted (1) is represented by cont256, (2) by contmnt and (3) by contnomnt respectively in the results. L M B E N C H 2 . 0 S U M M A R Y ------------------------------------ Basic system parameters ---------------------------------------------------- Host OS Description Mhz --------- ------------- ----------------------- ---- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993 Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better ---------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS Mhz null null open selct sig sig fork exec sh call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.33 4.31 5.93 9.910 0.23 1.59 152. 559. 5833 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.35 3.25 5.80 6.422 0.23 1.53 161. 562. 5937 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.29 3.18 5.14 11.3 0.23 1.37 159. 570. 5973 Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw --------- ------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1.760 1.9800 6.6600 3.0100 6.5500 3.12000 6.84000 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.950 1.9900 6.2900 3.6400 6.6800 3.59000 14.8 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.420 2.5100 6.6400 3.7600 6.5300 3.34000 21.5 *Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn --------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1.760 18.9 46.5 19.2 22.9 23.0 28.0 40.0 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.950 20.0 44.6 19.2 20.1 37.9 25.2 42.6 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.420 23.2 38.5 19.2 23.2 24.4 28.9 54.3 File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better -------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 17.6 15.4 62.8 29.4 1010.0 0.401 3.00000 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 20.7 16.4 68.1 31.9 3886.0 0.495 3.00000 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 21.1 16.8 69.3 31.6 4383.0 0.443 2.00000 *Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better ----------------------------------------------------------- Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ----- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 382. 802. 869. 1259.5 1757.8 1184.8 898.4 1875 1497. contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 307. 850. 810. 1236.2 1758.8 1173.2 890.9 2636 1469. contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 403. 980. 875. 1236.8 2531.7 912.0 1141.7 2636 1229. Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) --------------------------------------------------- Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses --------- ------------- ---- ----- ------ -------- ------- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.0260 63.8 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.0380 64.0 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.9410 97.4 Quick interpretation of results 1. contmnt and cont256 are comparable in performance 2. contnomnt showed degraded performance compared to contmnt A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know what you think of the results? Would you like to see different benchmarks/ tests/configuration results? Any feedback, suggestions to move this work forward towards identifying and correcting bottlenecks or to help improve it is highly appreciated. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>, Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>, devel@openvz.org, Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>, linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> Subject: RSS controller v2 Test results (lmbench ) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:12 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <464C95D4.7070806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw) Hi, Pavel/Andrew, I've run lmbench on RSS controller v2 with the following patches applied rss-fix-free-of-active-pages.patch rss-fix-nodescan.patch rss-implement-per-container-page-referenced.patch rss-fix-lru-race (NOTE: all of these were posted on lkml) I've used three configurations for testing 1. Container mounted with the RSS controller and the tests started within a container whose RSS is limited to 256 MB 2. Counter mounted, but no limit set 3. Counter not mounted (1) is represented by cont256, (2) by contmnt and (3) by contnomnt respectively in the results. L M B E N C H 2 . 0 S U M M A R Y ------------------------------------ Basic system parameters ---------------------------------------------------- Host OS Description Mhz --------- ------------- ----------------------- ---- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- x86_64-linux-gnu 1993 Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better ---------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS Mhz null null open selct sig sig fork exec sh call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.33 4.31 5.93 9.910 0.23 1.59 152. 559. 5833 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.35 3.25 5.80 6.422 0.23 1.53 161. 562. 5937 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 0.08 0.29 3.18 5.14 11.3 0.23 1.37 159. 570. 5973 Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw --------- ------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1.760 1.9800 6.6600 3.0100 6.5500 3.12000 6.84000 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.950 1.9900 6.2900 3.6400 6.6800 3.59000 14.8 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.420 2.5100 6.6400 3.7600 6.5300 3.34000 21.5 *Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better ------------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn --------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1.760 18.9 46.5 19.2 22.9 23.0 28.0 40.0 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.950 20.0 44.6 19.2 20.1 37.9 25.2 42.6 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1.420 23.2 38.5 19.2 23.2 24.4 28.9 54.3 File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better -------------------------------------------------------------- Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ----- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 17.6 15.4 62.8 29.4 1010.0 0.401 3.00000 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 20.7 16.4 68.1 31.9 3886.0 0.495 3.00000 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 21.1 16.8 69.3 31.6 4383.0 0.443 2.00000 *Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better ----------------------------------------------------------- Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write --------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ----- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 382. 802. 869. 1259.5 1757.8 1184.8 898.4 1875 1497. contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 307. 850. 810. 1236.2 1758.8 1173.2 890.9 2636 1469. contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 403. 980. 875. 1236.8 2531.7 912.0 1141.7 2636 1229. Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) --------------------------------------------------- Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses --------- ------------- ---- ----- ------ -------- ------- cont256 Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.0260 63.8 contmnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.0380 64.0 contnomnt Linux 2.6.20- 1993 1.506 6.9410 97.4 Quick interpretation of results 1. contmnt and cont256 are comparable in performance 2. contnomnt showed degraded performance compared to contmnt A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know what you think of the results? Would you like to see different benchmarks/ tests/configuration results? Any feedback, suggestions to move this work forward towards identifying and correcting bottlenecks or to help improve it is highly appreciated. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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 reply other threads:[~2007-05-17 17:50 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2007-05-17 17:50 Balbir Singh [this message] 2007-05-17 17:50 ` RSS controller v2 Test results (lmbench ) Balbir Singh 2007-05-17 18:23 ` Andrew Morton 2007-05-17 18:23 ` Andrew Morton 2007-05-18 3:46 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-18 3:46 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-21 15:03 ` Kirill Korotaev 2007-05-21 15:03 ` Kirill Korotaev 2007-05-24 7:36 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-24 7:36 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-24 7:39 ` Paul Menage 2007-05-24 7:39 ` Paul Menage 2007-05-24 8:00 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-24 8:00 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-18 2:55 ` Rik van Riel 2007-05-18 2:55 ` Rik van Riel 2007-05-18 4:07 ` Balbir Singh 2007-05-21 13:53 ` Lee Schermerhorn 2007-05-21 13:53 ` Lee Schermerhorn 2007-05-21 14:59 ` William Lee Irwin III 2007-05-21 14:59 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=464C95D4.7070806@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --to=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \ --cc=dev@sw.ru \ --cc=devel@openvz.org \ --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \ --cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=menage@google.com \ --cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=xemul@sw.ru \ /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: linkBe 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.