linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:08:07 +0100
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha6

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 08:12:58AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > 
> > So give me a break... you must have made a real mess in your 
> > benchmarking. numasched is always doing worse than upstream 
> > here, in fact two times massively worse. Almost as bad as the 
> > inverse binds.
> 
> Andrea, please stop attacking the messenger.

I am simply informing him. Why should not inform him that the way he
performed the benchmark wasn't the best way?

I informed him because it wasn't entirely documented how to properly
run by benchmark set. I would have expected people to read my pdf I
posted 2 months ago already that explains it:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/autonuma/
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/autonuma/autonuma_bench-20120126.pdf

Jump to page 7.

Two modes:

numa01 -DNO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE
numa01 -DTHREAD_ALLOC

I recommend Dan to now as last thing repeat the numasched benchmark
with the numa01 built was -DNO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE.

For me neither -DNO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE nor DTHREAD_ALLOC nor numa02
perform, in fact numa01 tends to hang and they never end.

> We wanted and needed more testing, and I'm glad that we got it.

Yes, I also posted the specjbb and I did a kernel build as measurement
of the worst case overhead of the numa hinting page fault.

You can see it here:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/autonuma/autonuma_bench-20120321.pdf

> Can we please figure out all the details *without* accusing 
> anyone of having made a mess? It is quite possible as well that 
> *you* made a mess of it somewhere, either at the conceptual 
> stage or at the implementational stage, right?

I didn't make a mess. I also repeated without lockdep still same
thing, in fact now it never ends. I'll have to reboot a few more times
to see if I can get at least some number out.

Maybe it takes -DNO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE to show the brokeness, I'll
wait Dan to repeat the numasched test with either
-DNO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE or -DTHREAD_ALLOC.

Or maybe the higher ram (24G vs my 16G) could have played a role.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/