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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAGjg+kG0KwX+skxTqzzwEs=2Gn9M_p83GCxEu-+5twDH+MsQ4g@mail.gmail.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists