On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I confirm that numa/core regresses significantly more without > > thp than the 6.3% regression I reported with thp in terms of > > throughput on the same system. numa/core at 01aa90068b12 > > ("sched: Use the best-buddy 'ideal cpu' in balancing > > decisions") had 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops whereas ec05a2311c35 > > ("Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into sched/core") had 122246.90 > > SPECjbb2005 bops, a 23.0% regression. > > What is the base performance figure with THP disabled? Your > baseline was: > > sched/core at ec05a2311c35: 136918.34 SPECjbb2005 > > Would be interesting to see how that kernel reacts to THP off. > In summary, the benchmarks that I've collected thus far are: THP enabled: numa/core at ec05a2311c35: 136918.34 SPECjbb2005 bops numa/core at 01aa90068b12: 128315.19 SPECjbb2005 bops (-6.3%) THP disabled: numa/core at ec05a2311c35: 122246.90 SPECjbb2005 bops numa/core at 01aa90068b12: 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops (-23.0%) -- 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>