linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:09:47 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing

* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2013-06-28 19:24:22]:

> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> [2013-06-26 15:37:59]:
> 
> > It's several months overdue and everything was quiet after 3.8 came out
> > but I recently had a chance to revisit automatic NUMA balancing for a few
> > days. I looked at basic scheduler integration resulting in the following
> > small series. Much of the following is heavily based on the numacore series
> > which in itself takes part of the autonuma series from back in November. In
> > particular it borrows heavily from Peter Ziljstra's work in "sched, numa,
> > mm: Add adaptive NUMA affinity support" but deviates too much to preserve
> > Signed-off-bys. As before, if the relevant authors are ok with it I'll
> > add Signed-off-bys (or add them yourselves if you pick the patches up).
> 
> 
> Here is a snapshot of the results of running autonuma-benchmark running on 8
> node 64 cpu system with hyper threading disabled. Ran 5 iterations for each
> setup
> 
> 	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+()
> 				Testcase:      Min      Max      Avg
> 				  numa01:  1784.16  1864.15  1800.16
> 				  numa02:    32.07    32.72    32.59
> 
> 	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + mel's patches
> 				Testcase:      Min      Max      Avg  %Change
> 				  numa01:  1752.48  1859.60  1785.60    0.82%
> 				  numa02:    47.21    60.58    53.43  -39.00%
> 
> So numa02 case; we see a degradation of around 39%.
> 

I reran the tests again 

KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+()
                        Testcase:      Min      Max      Avg
                          numa01:  1784.16  1864.15  1800.16
             numa01_THREAD_ALLOC:   293.75   315.35   311.03
                          numa02:    32.07    32.72    32.59
                      numa02_SMT:    39.27    39.79    39.69

KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + your patches
                        Testcase:      Min      Max      Avg  %Change
                          numa01:  1720.40  1876.89  1767.75    1.83%
             numa01_THREAD_ALLOC:   464.34   554.82   496.64  -37.37%
                          numa02:    52.02    58.57    56.21  -42.02%
                      numa02_SMT:    42.07    52.64    47.33  -16.14%


-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
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/