linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/46] Automatic NUMA Balancing V4

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]

Message-ID: <20121121173316.GA29311@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:33:16 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] Automatic NUMA Balancing V4


* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one
> > > > shortly in the "Latest numa/core release, v16" thread along with the latest
> > > > schednuma figures I have available.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Report is linked here https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/202
> > > 
> > > I ended up cancelling the remaining tests and restarted with
> > > 
> > > 1. schednuma + patches posted since so that works out as
> > 
> > Mel, I'd like to ask you to refer to our tree as numa/core or 
> > 'numacore' in the future. Would such a courtesy to use the 
> > current name of our tree be possible?
> > 
> 
> Sure, no problem.

Thanks!

I ran a quick test with your 'balancenuma v4' tree and while 
numa02 and numa01-THREAD-ALLOC performance is looking good, 
numa01 performance does not look very good:

                    mainline    numa/core      balancenuma-v4
     numa01:           340.3       139.4          276 secs

97% slower than numa/core.

I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well:

                                numa/core      balancenuma-v4
      SPECjbb  +THP:               655 k/sec      607 k/sec

Here it's 7.9% slower.

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/