* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [ SPECjbb transactions/sec ] |
> > [ higher is better ] |
> > |
> > SPECjbb single-1x32 524k 507k | 638k +21.7%
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> I was not able to run a full sets of tests today as I was
> distracted so all I have is a multi JVM comparison. I'll keep
> it shorter than average
>
> 3.7.0 3.7.0
> rc5-stats-v4r2 rc5-schednuma-v16r1
> TPut 1 101903.00 ( 0.00%) 77651.00 (-23.80%)
> TPut 2 213825.00 ( 0.00%) 160285.00 (-25.04%)
> TPut 3 307905.00 ( 0.00%) 237472.00 (-22.87%)
> TPut 4 397046.00 ( 0.00%) 302814.00 (-23.73%)
> TPut 5 477557.00 ( 0.00%) 364281.00 (-23.72%)
> TPut 6 542973.00 ( 0.00%) 420810.00 (-22.50%)
> TPut 7 540466.00 ( 0.00%) 448976.00 (-16.93%)
> TPut 8 543226.00 ( 0.00%) 463568.00 (-14.66%)
> TPut 9 513351.00 ( 0.00%) 468238.00 ( -8.79%)
> TPut 10 484126.00 ( 0.00%) 457018.00 ( -5.60%)
These figures are IMO way too low for a 64-way system. I have a
32-way system with midrange server CPUs and get 650k+/sec
easily.
Have you tried to analyze the root cause, what does 'perf top'
show during the run and how much idle time is there?
Trying to reproduce your findings I have done 4x JVM tests
myself, using 4x 8-warehouse setups, with a sizing of -Xms8192m
-Xmx8192m -Xss256k, and here are the results:
v3.7 v3.7
SPECjbb single-1x32 524k 638k +21.7%
SPECjbb multi-4x8 633k 655k +3.4%
So while here we are only marginally better than the
single-instance numbers (I will try to improve that in numa/core
v17), they are still better than mainline - and they are
definitely not slower as your numbers suggest ...
So we need to go back to the basics to figure this out: please
outline exactly which commit ID of the numa/core tree you have
booted. Also, how does 'perf top' look like on your box?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>