[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJd=RBDB7dZ1ppAOnfmk_wr37=-QN5DvEe+eub7AnZXC72nWkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:45:55 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 08:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>
>> > 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):
>>
>> AutoNUMA does not have native THP migration, that may explain some
>> of the difference.
Plus, numa/core is sucking the milk of TLB-flsh-optimization from Rik.
BTW, I want to see results of numa/core without such TLB boosts.
>
> When I made some fixes to the sched/numa native THP migration,
> I did also try porting that (with Hannes's memcg fixes) to AutoNUMA.
>
Thanks a ton;)
> +
> + new_page = alloc_pages_node(numa_node_id(),
> + (GFP_TRANSHUGE | GFP_THISNODE) & ~__GFP_WAIT, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
Such a brand new page is selected to be migration target, why?
Hillf
> + if (!new_page)
> + goto alloc_fail;
--
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