linux-kernel - Re: Comparison between three trees (was: Latest numa/core release, v17)

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: <20121126093826.GG8218@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:38:26 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	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>
Subject: Re: Comparison between three trees (was: Latest numa/core release,
 v17)

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 04:47:15PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On 11/24/12, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > Warning: This is an insanely long mail and there a lot of data here. Get
> > 	coffee or something.
> >
> > This is another round of comparisons between the latest released versions
> > of each of three automatic numa balancing trees that are out there.
> >
> > From the series "Automatic NUMA Balancing V5", the kernels tested were
> >
> > stats-v5r1	Patches 1-10. TLB optimisations, migration stats
> > thpmigrate-v5r1	Patches 1-37. Basic placement policy, PMD handling, THP
> > migration etc.
> > adaptscan-v5r1	Patches 1-38. Heavy handed PTE scan reduction
> > delaystart-v5r1 Patches 1-40. Delay the PTE scan until running on a new
> > node
> >
> > If I just say balancenuma, I mean the "delaystart-v5r1" kernel. The other
> > kernels are included so you can see the impact the scan rate adaption
> > patch has and what that might mean for a placement policy using a proper
> > feedback mechanism.
> >
> > The other two kernels were
> >
> > numacore-20121123 It was no longer clear what the deltas between releases
> > and
> > 	the dependencies might be so I just pulled tip/master on November
> > 	23rd, 2012. An earlier pull had serious difficulties and the patch
> > 	responsible has been dropped since. This is not a like-with-like
> > 	comparison as the tree contains numerous other patches but it's
> > 	the best available given the timeframe
> >
> > autonuma-v28fast This is a rebased version of Andrea's autonuma-v28fast
> > 	branch with Hugh's THP migration patch on top.
> 
> FYI, based on how target huge page is selected,
> 
> +
> +	new_page = alloc_pages_node(numa_node_id(),
> +		(GFP_TRANSHUGE | GFP_THISNODE) & ~__GFP_WAIT, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
> 
> the thp replacement policy is changed to be MORON,
> 

That is likely true. When rebasing a policy on top of balancenuma it is
important to keep an eye on what node is used for target migration and
what node is passed to task_numa_fault() and confirm this is the node
the policy expects.

-- 
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/