lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] rcuperf: Add kfree_rcu() performance Tests
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:44:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:31:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:27:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > > Or is the idea to time the kfree_rcu() loop separately? (I don't see
> > > > > > any such separate timing, though.)
> > > > >
> > > > > The kmalloc() times are included within the kfree loop. The timing of
> > > > > kfree_rcu() is not separate in my patch.
> > > >
> > > > You lost me on this one. What happens when you just interleave the
> > > > kmalloc() and kfree_rcu(), without looping, compared to the looping
> > > > above? Does this get more expensive? Cheaper? More vulnerable to OOM?
> > > > Something else?
> > >
> > > You mean pairing a single kmalloc() with a single kfree_rcu() and doing this
> > > several times? The results are very similar to doing kfree_alloc_num
> > > kmalloc()s, then do kfree_alloc_num kfree_rcu()s; and repeat the whole thing
> > > kfree_loops times (as done by this rcuperf patch we are reviewing).
> > >
> > > Following are some numbers. One change is the case where we are not at all
> > > batching does seem to complete even faster when we fully interleave kmalloc()
> > > with kfree() while the case of batching in the same scenario completes at the
> > > same time as did the "not fully interleaved" scenario. However, the grace
> > > period reduction improvements and the chances of OOM'ing are pretty much the
> > > same in either case.
> > [snip]
> > > Not fully interleaved: do kfree_alloc_num kmallocs, then do kfree_alloc_num kfree_rcu()s. And repeat this kfree_loops times.
> > > =======================
> > > (1) Batching
> > > rcuperf.kfree_loops=20000 rcuperf.kfree_alloc_num=8000 rcuperf.kfree_no_batch=0 rcuperf.kfree_rcu_test=1
> > >
> > > root@(none):/# free -m
> > > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > > Mem: 977 251 686 0 39 684
> > > Swap: 0 0 0
> > >
> > > [ 15.574402] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 14185970787 ns, loops: 20000, batches: 1548
> > >
> > > (2) No Batching
> > > rcuperf.kfree_loops=20000 rcuperf.kfree_alloc_num=8000 rcuperf.kfree_no_batch=1 rcuperf.kfree_rcu_test=1
> > >
> > > root@(none):/# free -m
> > > total used free shared buff/cache available
> > > Mem: 977 82 855 0 39 853
> > > Swap: 0 0 0
> > >
> > > [ 13.724554] Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 12246217291 ns, loops: 20000, batches: 7262
> >
> > And the diff for changing the test to do this case is as follows (I don't
> > plan to fold this diff in, since I feel the existing test suffices and
> > results are similar):
>
> But why not? It does look to be a nice simplification, after all.

That's true. Ok, I'll squash it in. thanks!

thanks,

- Joel
[snip]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-21 02:52    [W:0.042 / U:7.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site