On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 7:34 AM Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 10/22/19 6:27 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > [...] > > Below are the results from various benchmarks. I primarily focused on two > > tests. The first is the will-it-scale/page_fault2 test, and the other is > > a modified version of will-it-scale/page_fault1 that was enabled to use > > THP. I did this as it allows for better visibility into different parts > > of the memory subsystem. The guest is running on one node of a E5-2630 v3 > > CPU with 48G of RAM that I split up into two logical nodes in the guest > > in order to test with NUMA as well. > > > > Test page_fault1 (THP) page_fault2 > > Baseline 1 1256106.33 +/-0.09% 482202.67 +/-0.46% > > 16 8864441.67 +/-0.09% 3734692.00 +/-1.23% > > > > Patches applied 1 1257096.00 +/-0.06% 477436.00 +/-0.16% > > 16 8864677.33 +/-0.06% 3800037.00 +/-0.19% > > > > Patches enabled 1 1258420.00 +/-0.04% 480080.00 +/-0.07% > > MADV disabled 16 8753840.00 +/-1.27% 3782764.00 +/-0.37% > > > > Patches enabled 1 1267916.33 +/-0.08% 472075.67 +/-0.39% > > 16 8287050.33 +/-0.67% 3774500.33 +/-0.11% > > If I am not mistaken then you are only observing the number of processes (and > not the number of threads) launched over the 1st and the 16th vcpu reported by > will-it-scale? You are correct these results are for the processes. I monitored them for 1 - 16, but only included the results for 1 and 16 since those seem to be the most relevant data points.
