On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:12:51 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > == These numbers are stable to some extent.==
> > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2: (Limit: 800M)     
> > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run:
> > Elapsed Time 358.933---------------------------(*)
> > User Time 1069.63
> > System Time 140.667
> > Percent CPU 337.333
> > Context Switches 220821
> > Sleeps 196912
> > 
> > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 + throttle (Limit:800M)
> > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run:
> > Elapsed Time 266.697---------------------------(*)
> > User Time 1105.39
> > System Time 124.423
> > Percent CPU 471.667
> > Context Switches 251797
> > Sleeps 231038
> > 
> > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 + throttle + High/Low watermark.
> > (low:750M High:780M Limit:800M)
> > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run:
> > Elapsed Time 266.844---------------------------(*)
> > User Time 1112.9
> > System Time 112.273
> > Percent CPU 473.667
> > Context Switches 251795
> > Sleeps 220339
> > ==
> > 
> 
> Looks good to me, was there any impact on memory.failcnt?
> 
This version o patch doesn't care it. (I'll fix.)
I just wanted to ask someone has (another) throttling patch or idea.

> > Seems throttling reclaim has some good effect (for kernbench).
> > Does anyone have an idea for throttling  reclaiming of memory controller ?
> > 
> 
> In the past I've run workloads of apache+geronimo+open trade, I've run
> linear sequential memory access tests, kernbench, lmbench, database
> benchmarks (DOTS, pgbench, etc). I think Lee Schermerhorn has a very
> interesting setup (that I need to learn to replicate).
> 
Ok, thanks.
I will reflesh and post new one.


Regards
-Kame


_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers