linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic NUMA balance after wake

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:   Mon, 12 Feb 2018 18:34:49 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic
 NUMA balance after wake_affine

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:11:31PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:

> However, the benefit in other cases is large. This is the result for NAS
> with the D class sizing on a 4-socket machine
> 
>                           4.15.0                 4.15.0
>                     sdnuma-v1r23       delayretry-v1r23
> Time cg.D      557.00 (   0.00%)      431.82 (  22.47%)
> Time ep.D       77.83 (   0.00%)       79.01 (  -1.52%)
> Time is.D       26.46 (   0.00%)       26.64 (  -0.68%)
> Time lu.D      727.14 (   0.00%)      597.94 (  17.77%)
> Time mg.D      191.35 (   0.00%)      146.85 (  23.26%)

Last time I checked, we were some ~25% from OMP_PROC_BIND with NAS, this
seems to close that hole significantly. Do you happen to have
OMP_PROC_BIND numbers handy to see how far away we are from manual
affinity?