[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121210191545.GA14412@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:15:45 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3
* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 01:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page,
> > with a slight advantage for numacore in the THP enabled
> > case. balancenuma is closer to mainline than to
> > autonuma/numacore.
>
> Indeed, when the system is fully loaded, numacore does very
> well.
Note that the latest (-v3) code also does well in under-loaded
situations:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/331
Here's the 'perf bench numa' comparison to 'balancenuma':
balancenuma | NUMA-tip
[test unit] : -v10 | -v3
------------------------------------------------------------
2x1-bw-process : 6.136 | 9.647: 57.2%
3x1-bw-process : 7.250 | 14.528: 100.4%
4x1-bw-process : 6.867 | 18.903: 175.3%
8x1-bw-process : 7.974 | 26.829: 236.5%
8x1-bw-process-NOTHP : 5.937 | 22.237: 274.5%
16x1-bw-process : 5.592 | 29.294: 423.9%
4x1-bw-thread : 13.598 | 19.290: 41.9%
8x1-bw-thread : 16.356 | 26.391: 61.4%
16x1-bw-thread : 24.608 | 29.557: 20.1%
32x1-bw-thread : 25.477 | 30.232: 18.7%
2x3-bw-thread : 8.785 | 15.327: 74.5%
4x4-bw-thread : 6.366 | 27.957: 339.2%
4x6-bw-thread : 6.287 | 27.877: 343.4%
4x8-bw-thread : 5.860 | 28.439: 385.3%
4x8-bw-thread-NOTHP : 6.167 | 25.067: 306.5%
3x3-bw-thread : 8.235 | 21.560: 161.8%
5x5-bw-thread : 5.762 | 26.081: 352.6%
2x16-bw-thread : 5.920 | 23.269: 293.1%
1x32-bw-thread : 5.828 | 18.985: 225.8%
numa02-bw : 29.054 | 31.431: 8.2%
numa02-bw-NOTHP : 27.064 | 29.104: 7.5%
numa01-bw-thread : 20.338 | 28.607: 40.7%
numa01-bw-thread-NOTHP : 18.528 | 21.119: 14.0%
------------------------------------------------------------
More than half of these testcases are under-loaded situations.
> The main issues that have been observed with numacore are when
> the system is only partially loaded. Something strange seems
> to be going on that causes performance regressions in that
> situation.
I haven't seen such reports with -v3 yet, which is what Thomas
tested. Mel has not tested -v3 yet AFAICS.
If there are any such instances left then I'll investigate, but
right now it's looking pretty good.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists