| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:25:58 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] Improve numa load balancing
Here is a patchset that improves numa load balancing. It prefers
numa over cache during regular balancing. It also takes imbalance_pct into
consideration in numa_has_capacity() and provides few fixes to
task_numa_migrate().
Here are results from 5 runs of autonuma-benchmark
(https://github.com/pholasek/autonuma-benchmark)
KernelVersion: 4.1.0-rc7-tip
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev
elapsed_numa01: 858.85 949.18 915.64 33.06
elapsed_numa02: 23.09 29.89 26.43 2.18
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev
system_numa01: 1516.72 1855.08 1686.24 113.95
system_numa02: 63.69 79.06 70.35 5.87
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev
user_numa01: 73284.76 80818.21 78060.88 2773.60
user_numa02: 1690.18 2071.07 1821.64 140.25
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev
total_numa01: 74801.50 82572.60 79747.12 2875.61
total_numa02: 1753.87 2142.77 1891.99 143.59
KernelVersion: 4.1.0-rc7-tip + patchset
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change
elapsed_numa01: 718.47 916.32 867.63 75.47 5.24%
elapsed_numa02: 19.12 28.79 24.78 3.46 5.73%
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change
system_numa01: 870.48 1493.04 1208.64 202.34 31.99%
system_numa02: 41.25 64.56 55.12 7.96 23.59%
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change
user_numa01: 57736.89 74336.14 70092.39 6213.45 10.72%
user_numa02: 1478.86 2122.50 1768.01 221.06 2.53%
Testcase: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change
total_numa01: 58607.40 75628.90 71301.04 6380.18 11.17%
total_numa02: 1520.11 2183.44 1823.13 227.16 3.15%
Performance counter stats for 'system wide':
numa01
KernelVersion: 4.1.0-rc7-tip
7,58,804 cs [100.00%]
1,29,961 migrations [100.00%]
7,08,643 faults
3,97,97,92,613 cache-misses
949.188997751 seconds time elapsed
KernelVersion: 4.1.0-rc7-tip + patchset
11,38,993 cs [100.00%]
2,05,490 migrations [100.00%]
8,72,140 faults
3,97,61,99,522 cache-misses
907.583509759 seconds time elapsed
numa02
KernelVersion: 4.1.0-rc7-tip
29,573 cs [100.00%]
4,671 migrations [100.00%]
33,236 faults
12,68,88,021 cache-misses
29.897733416 seconds time elapsed
KernelVersion: 4.1.0-rc7-tip + patchset
23,422 cs [100.00%]
4,306 migrations [100.00%]
23,858 faults
9,98,87,326 cache-misses
22.776749102 seconds time elapsed
# numactl -H
available: 4 nodes (0-3)
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
node 0 size: 32425 MB
node 0 free: 31352 MB
node 1 cpus: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
node 1 size: 31711 MB
node 1 free: 30147 MB
node 2 cpus: 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
node 2 size: 30431 MB
node 2 free: 29636 MB
node 3 cpus: 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
node 3 size: 32219 MB
node 3 free: 31053 MB
node distances:
node 0 1 2 3
0: 10 20 40 40
1: 20 10 40 40
2: 40 40 10 20
3: 40 40 20 10
Srikar Dronamraju (4):
sched/tip:Prefer numa hotness over cache hotness
sched: Consider imbalance_pct when comparing loads in numa_has_capacity
sched: Fix task_numa_migrate to always update preferred node
sched: Use correct nid while evaluating task weights
kernel/sched/fair.c | 109 ++++++++++++++----------------------------------
kernel/sched/features.h | 18 +++-----
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
--
1.8.3.1
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists