linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Automatic NUMA Balancing V11

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:50:21 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <lkml.alex@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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>, Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Automatic NUMA Balancing V11

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
>> This is a pull request for "Automatic NUMA Balancing V11". The list
>
> Ok, guys, I've pulled this and pushed out. There were some conflicts
> with both the VM changes and with the scheduler tree, but they were
> pretty small and looked simple, so I fixed them up and hope they all
> work.
>
> Has anybody tested the impact on single-node systems? If distros

I tested your tree till this patch set under our lkp testing system,
with benchmark kbuild, aim9-mutitask, specjbb2005 -openjdk/jrockit,
hackbench-process/thread, sysbench -fileio-cfq, multiple loop back
netperf, on 2 laptops, SNB i7, and WSM i5.
only aim9-mutitask-nl (2000 loads, increment 100) has about 2%
performance drop on both of machine.
all others has no clear performance change.


> enable this by default (and it does have 'default y', which is a big
> no-no for new features - I undid that part) then there will be tons of
> people running this without actually having multiple sockets. Does it
> gracefully avoid pointless overheads for this case?
>
--
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/