linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing

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: <20130628135422.GA21895@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:24:22 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> [2013-06-26 15:37:59]:

> It's several months overdue and everything was quiet after 3.8 came out
> but I recently had a chance to revisit automatic NUMA balancing for a few
> days. I looked at basic scheduler integration resulting in the following
> small series. Much of the following is heavily based on the numacore series
> which in itself takes part of the autonuma series from back in November. In
> particular it borrows heavily from Peter Ziljstra's work in "sched, numa,
> mm: Add adaptive NUMA affinity support" but deviates too much to preserve
> Signed-off-bys. As before, if the relevant authors are ok with it I'll
> add Signed-off-bys (or add them yourselves if you pick the patches up).


Here is a snapshot of the results of running autonuma-benchmark running on 8
node 64 cpu system with hyper threading disabled. Ran 5 iterations for each
setup

	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+()
				Testcase:      Min      Max      Avg
				  numa01:  1784.16  1864.15  1800.16
				  numa02:    32.07    32.72    32.59

	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + mel's patches
				Testcase:      Min      Max      Avg  %Change
				  numa01:  1752.48  1859.60  1785.60    0.82%
				  numa02:    47.21    60.58    53.43  -39.00%

So numa02 case; we see a degradation of around 39%.

Details below
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

numa01
	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+()
	 Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/time -f %e %S %U %c %w -o start_bench.out -a ./numa01':
		   554,289 cs                                                           [100.00%]
		    26,727 migrations                                                   [100.00%]
		 1,982,054 faults                                                       [100.00%]
		     5,819 migrate:mm_migrate_pages                                    

	    1784.171745972 seconds time elapsed

	numa01 1784.16 352.58 68140.96 141242 4862

	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + mel's patches
	 Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/time -f %e %S %U %c %w -o start_bench.out -a ./numa01':

		 1,072,118 cs                                                           [100.00%]
		    43,796 migrations                                                   [100.00%]
		 5,226,896 faults                                                       [100.00%]
		     2,815 migrate:mm_migrate_pages                                    

	    1763.961631143 seconds time elapsed

	numa01 1763.95 321.62 78358.88 233740 2712


numa02
	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+()

	 Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/time -f %e %S %U %c %w -o start_bench.out -a ./numa02':

		    14,018 cs                                                           [100.00%]
		     1,209 migrations                                                   [100.00%]
		    40,847 faults                                                       [100.00%]
		       629 migrate:mm_migrate_pages                                    

	      32.729238004 seconds time elapsed

	numa02 32.72 51.25 1415.06 6013 111

	KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + mel's patches

	 Performance counter stats for '/usr/bin/time -f %e %S %U %c %w -o start_bench.out -a ./numa02':

		    35,891 cs                                                           [100.00%]
		     1,579 migrations                                                   [100.00%]
		   173,443 faults                                                       [100.00%]
		     1,106 migrate:mm_migrate_pages                                    

	      53.970814899 seconds time elapsed

	numa02 53.96 128.90 2301.90 9291 148

Notes:
In the numa01 case, we see a slight benefit + lesser system and user time.
We see more context switches and task migrations but lesser page migrations.


In the numa02 case, we see a larger degradation + higher system + higher user
time. We see more context switches and more page migrations too.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
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/