OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [-mm PATCH 0/9] Memory controller introduction (v6)
Re: [-mm PATCH 0/9] Memory controller introduction (v6) [message #19727 is a reply to message #19716] Fri, 17 August 2007 15:49 Go to previous message
Dhaval Giani is currently offline  Dhaval Giani
Messages: 37
Registered: June 2007
Member
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:12:28PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hi Andrew,
 
> The code was also tested on a power box with regular machine usage scenarios,
> the config disabled and with a stress suite that touched all the memory
> in the system and was limited in a container.
> 
> Dhaval ran several tests on v6 and gave his thumbs up to the controller
> (a hard to achieve goal :-) ).
> 

I've been running v6 on x86 and there are a few things I've tried. Most
of those results Balbir has already posted.

> Run kernbench stress
> --------------------
> Three simultaneously and with one inside a container of 800 MB.
> 

The idea here was to create pressure inside the container while having
global pressure.

> 
> Kernbench results running within the container of 800 MB
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thu Aug 16 22:34:59 IST 2007
> 2.6.23-rc2-mm2-mem-v6
> Average Half load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 466.548 (47.6014)
> User Time 876.598 (10.5273)
> System Time 223.136 (1.29247)
> Percent CPU 237.2 (23.2744)
> Context Switches 146351 (6539.91)
> Sleeps 174003 (5031.94)
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 423.496 (60.625)
> User Time 897.285 (23.0391)
> System Time 228.836 (6.11205)
> Percent CPU 257.1 (40.9022)
> Context Switches 262134 (123397)
> Sleeps 270815 (103597)
> 
> 
> Kernbench results running within the default container
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thu Aug 16 22:34:33 IST 2007
> 2.6.23-rc2-mm2-mem-v6
> Average Half load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 424.17 (3.45908)
> User Time 841.992 (5.40178)
> System Time 213.01 (0.706258)
> Percent CPU 248.2 (0.83666)
> Context Switches 134254 (9535.83)
> Sleeps 167359 (6858.45)
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 407.092 (108.932)
> User Time 878.493 (38.6575)
> System Time 222.155 (9.77127)
> Percent CPU 278.4 (91.5826)
> Context Switches 253836 (127708)
> Sleeps 263760 (103468)
> 
> 
> Kernbench results running within the default container
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thu Aug 16 22:34:52 IST 2007
> 2.6.23-rc2-mm2-mem-v6
> Average Half load -j 4 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 465.038 (48.5147)
> User Time 874.742 (5.86563)
> System Time 222.194 (0.561676)
> Percent CPU 237.2 (22.5211)
> Context Switches 144040 (7052.23)
> Sleeps 172130 (5608.73)
> 
> Average Optimal load -j 32 Run (std deviation):
> Elapsed Time 426.25 (62.34)
> User Time 893.938 (20.6732)
> System Time 227.717 (5.87502)
> Percent CPU 255.6 (40.7163)
> Context Switches 259560 (122953)
> Sleeps 267402 (101801)
> 

I've been running v6 for sometime and it has been stable (still not
been able to break/crash it, whereas v4 was broken within 1 hour :-) )

Andrew, I feel these patches whould be included in mm so that it gets
wider testing.

-- 
regards,
Dhaval

I would like to change the world but they don't give me the source code!
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [PATCH 01/29] task containersv11 basic task container framework
Next Topic: [PATCH 2/5][GFS2] Use macro instead of explicit check for mandatory locks
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Oct 09 10:22:40 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.16682 seconds