[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121210193219.GM1009@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:32:19 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
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
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The SPECjbb 4x JVM numbers are still very close to the
> > hard-binding results:
> >
> > Fri Dec 7 02:08:42 CET 2012
> > spec1.txt: throughput = 188667.94 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > spec2.txt: throughput = 190109.31 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > spec3.txt: throughput = 191438.13 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > spec4.txt: throughput = 192508.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > --------------------------
> > SUM: throughput = 762723.72 SPECjbb2005 bops
> >
> > And the same is true for !THP as well.
>
> I could not resist to throw all relevant trees on my own 4node machine
> and run a SPECjbb 4x JVM comparison. All results have been averaged
> over 10 runs.
>
> mainline: v3.7-rc8
> autonuma: mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase
> balancenuma: mm-balancenuma-v10r3
> numacore: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3
>
> The config is based on a F16 config with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and the
> relevant NUMA options enabled for the 4 trees.
>
Ok, I had PREEMPT enabled so we differ on that at least. I don't know if
it would be enough to hide the problems that led to the JVM crashing on
me for the latest version of numacore or not.
> THP off: manual placement result: 125239
>
> Auto result Man/Auto Mainline/Auto Variance
> mainline : 93945 0.750 1.000 5.91%
> autonuma : 123651 0.987 1.316 5.15%
> balancenuma : 97327 0.777 1.036 5.19%
> numacore : 123009 0.982 1.309 5.73%
>
>
> THP on: manual placement result: 143170
>
> Auto result Auto/Manual Auto/Mainline Variance
> mainline : 104462 0.730 1.000 8.47%
> autonuma : 137363 0.959 1.315 5.81%
> balancenuma : 112183 0.784 1.074 11.58%
> numacore : 142728 0.997 1.366 2.94%
>
> 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.
>
I would expect balancenuma to be closer to mainline than autonuma, whatever
about numacore which I get mixed results for. balancenumas objective was
not to be the best, it was meant to be a baseline that either autonuma
or numacore could compete based on scheduler policies for while the MM
portions would be common to either. If I thought otherwise I would have
spent the last 2 weeks working on the scheduler aspects which would have
been generally unhelpful.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists