RSS controller v2 Test results (lmbench )

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

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 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/