linux-kernel - Re: numa/core regressions fixed

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 Nov 2012 16:15:52 -0600
From:	Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted

On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 11:52 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:54:13PM -0600, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ( The 4x JVM regression is still an open bug I think - I'll
> > > >   re-check and fix that one next, no need to re-report it,
> > > >   I'm on it. )
> > > 
> > > So I tested this on !THP too and the combined numbers are now:
> > > 
> > >                                           |
> > >   [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ]                   |
> > >   [ tx/sec            ]  v3.7             |  numa/core-v16
> > >   [ higher is better  ] -----             |  -------------
> > >                                           |
> > >               +THP:      639k             |       655k            +2.5%
> > >               -THP:      510k             |       517k            +1.3%
> > > 
> > > So it's not a regression anymore, regardless of whether THP is 
> > > enabled or disabled.
> > > 
> > > The current updated table of performance results is:
> > > 
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   [ seconds         ]    v3.7  AutoNUMA   |  numa/core-v16    [ vs. v3.7]
> > >   [ lower is better ]   -----  --------   |  -------------    -----------
> > >                                           |
> > >   numa01                340.3    192.3    |      139.4          +144.1%
> > >   numa01_THREAD_ALLOC   425.1    135.1    |	 121.1          +251.0%
> > >   numa02                 56.1     25.3    |       17.5          +220.5%
> > >                                           |
> > >   [ SPECjbb transactions/sec ]            |
> > >   [ higher is better         ]            |
> > >                                           |
> > >   SPECjbb 1x32 +THP      524k     507k    |	  638k           +21.7%
> > >   SPECjbb 1x32 !THP      395k             |       512k           +29.6%
> > >                                           |
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >                                           |
> > >   [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ]                   |
> > >   [ tx/sec            ]  v3.7               numa/core-v16
> > >   [ higher is better  ] -----             |  -------------
> > >                                           |
> > >               +THP:      639k             |       655k            +2.5%
> > >               -THP:      510k             |       517k            +1.3%
> > > 
> > > So I think I've addressed all regressions reported so far - if 
> > > anyone can still see something odd, please let me know so I can 
> > > reproduce and fix it ASAP.
> > 
> > I can confirm single JVM JBB is working well for me.  I see a 30%
> > improvement over autoNUMA.  What I can't make sense of is some perf
> > stats (taken at 80 warehouses on 4 x WST-EX, 512GB memory):
> > 
> 
> I'm curious about possible effects with profiling. Can you rerun just
> this test without any profiling and see if the gain is the same? My own
> tests are running monitors but they only fire every 10 seconds and are
> not running profiles.

After using the patch Hugh provided, I did make a 2nd run, this time
with no profiling at all, and the run was 2% higher.  Not sure if this
is due to profiling gone, or just run to run variance, but nevertheless
a pretty low difference.

-Andrew Theurer


--
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/