On 1/24/12 5:45 PM, Arun Sharma wrote:

On 1/23/12 7:07 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

You can see reduction of clear_page() cost by removing GFP_ZERO but
what's your application's total performance ? Is it good enough
considering
many risks ?

I see 90k calls/sec to clear_page_c when running our application. I
don't have data on the impact of GFP_ZERO alone, but an earlier
experiment when we tuned malloc to not call madvise(MADV_DONTNEED)
aggressively saved us 3% CPU. So I'm expecting this to be a 1-2% win.

I saw some additional measurement data today.

We were running at a lower-than-default value for the rate at which our 
malloc implementation releases unused faulted-in memory to the kernel 
via madvise(). This was done just to reduce the impact of clear_page() 
on application performance. But it cost us at least several hundred megs 
(if not more) in additional RSS.

We compared the impact of increasing the madvise rate to the default[1]. 
This used to cause a 3% CPU regression earlier. But with the patch, the 
regression was completely gone and we recovered a bunch of memory in 
terms of reduced RSS.

Hope this additional data is useful. Happy to clean up the patch and 
implement the opt-in flags.

  -Arun

[1] The default rate is 32:1, i.e. no more than 1/32th of the heap is 
unused and dirty (i.e. contributing to RSS).

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>