linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/49] Automatic NUMA Balancing v10

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: <20121213132148.GD29086@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:51:48 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 00/49] Automatic NUMA Balancing v10

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> [2012-12-07 10:23:03]:

> This is a full release of all the patches so apologies for the flood.  V9 was
> just a MIPS build fix and did not justify a full release. V10 includes Ingo's
> scalability patches because even though they increase system CPU usage,
> they also helped in a number of test cases. It would be worthwhile trying
> to reduce the system CPU usage by looking closer at how rwsem works and
> dealing with the contended case a bit better. Otherwise the rate of change
> in the last few weeks has been tiny as the preliminary objectives had been
> met and I did not want to invalidate any testing other people had conducted.
> 
> git tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma.git mm-balancenuma-v10r3
> git tag:  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma.git mm-balancenuma-v10

Here are the specjbb results on a 2 node 24 GB machine.
vm_1 was allocated 12 GB, while vm_2 and vm_3 were allocated 6 GB each
All vms were running specjbb2005 workload

All numbers presented are improvements/regression from v3.7-rc8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     |                          nofit|                            fit|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     |          noksm|            ksm|          noksm|            ksm|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |     |  nothp|    thp|  nothp|    thp|  nothp|    thp|  nothp|    thp|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| autonuma-mels-rebase | vm_1|   2.48|  14.25|   1.80|  15.59|   8.16|  14.62|   8.56|  17.49|
| autonuma-mels-rebase | vm_2|  23.59|  18.67|  14.20|  23.25|  10.73|  13.18|  17.94|  21.72|
| autonuma-mels-rebase | vm_3|  16.19|  19.40|  14.42|  22.54|  11.08|  12.04|   9.79|  20.34|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| mel-balancenuma v10r3| vm_1|   0.10|   1.49|   1.78|   4.00|  -1.01|  -1.16|  -1.02|  -0.60|
| mel-balancenuma v10r3| vm_2|   3.45|  -0.67|  -1.54|   2.65|  -2.83|  -7.10|   0.10|  -2.41|
| mel-balancenuma v10r3| vm_3|   0.56|   5.49|  -0.63|   0.09|  -7.41|  -4.52|  -0.77|  -1.80|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| tip-master 11-dec    | vm_1|  -5.68|  12.34|  35.96|  13.33|  10.79|  15.22|   9.65|  12.80|
| tip-master 11-dec    | vm_2|  14.70|  15.54|  77.45|  15.10|  12.82|  11.20|  12.66|  na   |
| tip-master 11-dec    | vm_3|   6.66|  19.26|  na   |  14.93|   7.62|  14.72|  14.73|  12.34|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


there are couple na's .. In those case, the testlog for some wierd
reason didnt have any data. this somehow seems to happen with tip/master
kernel only. May be its just coincidence.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar

PS: benchmark was run under non-standard conditions run only for the
purpose of relative comparision of different kernels.

--
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/