On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 13:50 -0700, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > Hi Soumyadeep and Melanie, > > Thank you for the review! > > > max_stack_depth max level lazy (ms) eager (ms) > (eage > > r/lazy) > > 2MB 82 302.715 427.554 1.4123978 > > 3MB 3474 567.829 896.143 1.578191674 > > 7.67MB 8694 2657.972 4903.063 1.844663149 > > Thank you for collecting data on this. Were you able to find any > regression when compared to no memory accounting at all? > > We didn't spend much time comparing performance with and without memory accounting, as it seems like this was discussed extensively in the previous thread. > It looks like you agree with the approach and the results. Did you find > any other issues with the patch? > We didn't observe any other problems with the patch and agree with the approach. It is a good start. > > I am also including Robert in this thread. He had some concerns the > last time around due to a small regression on POWER. > I think it would be helpful if we could repeat the performance tests Robert did on that machine with the current patch (unless this version of the patch is exactly the same as the ones he tested previously). Thanks, Soumyadeep & Melanie
