Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans -- vm bugfixes

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>
> > > Is that every fork/exec or just under certain cicumstances?
> > > A 5% regression on every fork/exec is not acceptable.
> >
> >
> >
> > Well after patch2, G5 fork is 3% and exec is 1%, I'd say the P4
> > numbers will be improved as well with that patch. Then if we have
> > specific lock/unlock bitops, I hope it should reduce that further.
>
>
> OK, with the races and missing barriers fixed from the previous patch,
> plus the attached one added (+patch3), numbers are better again (I'm not
> sure if I have the ppc barriers correct though).
>
> These ops could also be put to use in bit spinlocks, buffer lock, and
> probably a few other places too.
>
> 2.6.21   1.49-1.51   164.6-170.8   741.8-760.3
> +patch   1.71-1.73   175.2-180.8   780.5-794.2
> +patch2  1.61-1.63   169.8-175.0   748.6-757.0
> +patch3  1.54-1.57   165.6-170.9   748.5-757.5
>
> So fault performance goes to under 5%, fork is in the noise, exec is
> still up 1%, but maybe that's noise or cache effects again.

OK, with my new lock/unlock_page, dd if=large (bigger than RAM) sparse
file of=/dev/null with an experimentally optimal block size (32K) goes
from 626MB/s to 683MB/s on 2 CPU G5 booted with maxcpus=1.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/