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 11:52:55 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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 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.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/