linux-kernel - 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:	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:56:47 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	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: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted


* 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.

Next I'll work on making multi-JVM more of an improvement, and 
I'll also address any incoming regression reports.

Those of you who would like to test all the latest patches are 
welcome to pick up latest bits at tip:master:

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/