[linux-mm-cc] interbench result
Nitin Gupta
nitingupta910 at gmail.com
Tue May 13 01:10:25 EDT 2008
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Nai Xia <nai.xia at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Nai Xia <nai.xia at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [linux-mm-cc] interbench result
> To: John McCabe-Dansted <gmatht at gmail.com>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM, John McCabe-Dansted <gmatht at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find the following format easier to understand, and have attached Nai's
>
> Yes, you are right, :)
>
>
>
> > result in this format. Additionally I have generated results for my P3-500
> > with 256MB of ram and 512MB of compcache, and included the scripts I used.
> >
> > Anyway, Nai do you have an interpretation of this data? Also, is the memory
>
Readme file included with interbench contains some information on this.
> Well, actually I am thinking although interbench was a good
> Interactivity benchmark tool,
> it may not distinguish compcache much. For most of the numbers are
> related to CPU timing,
> but all the simulated programs do not change RAM usage when they are
> waked up or sleep.
> I am thinking that the result is of little relevance to the amount of
> PHY RAM it has, it is designed
> for scheduler.(I will do additional test to prove this).
>
Yes, now I also think the same. After interbench tests are completed,
very little swap
space is used. So, it is not much afftected by compcache.
> By now, from my point of view, what we really need is a
> famous/standard benchmark that makes anonymous pages compete
> drastically with file cached pages (like kpdf & firefox )---- that is
> indeed where compcache stands like a real hero.
>
I think ideal scenario for compcache is when all of these conditions
are satisfied:
- Working set of apps (anon + page cache) > Physical RAM
- Phy RAM left over from compcache is enough to hold page-cache part
of working set
- Compressibility is good
These conditions seem to hold true for "general desktop use" (web
browsers, editors etc.)
>
>
>
> > used in any sense of "normal" compressibility?
>
> I did not record the compressibility, since I thought intercepting
> interbench might change the result .....
>
>
You can note this by checking /proc/compcache after interbench tests
are complete.
In my tests, I see that compressibility is great (NumGoodCompress > 95%) since
maybe its filling memory with 0's. One strange thing to notice is that number
of ramzswap reads/writes is huge (in order of 10^6).
Cheers,
Nitin
More information about the linux-mm-cc
mailing list