Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/20/2012 08:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:

I can confirm single JVM JBB is working well for me.  I see a 30%
improvement over autoNUMA.  What I can't make sense of is some perf
stats (taken at 80 warehouses on 4 x WST-EX, 512GB memory):

AutoNUMA does not have native THP migration, that may explain some
of the difference.

tips numa/core:

      5,429,632,865 node-loads
      3,806,419,082 node-load-misses(70.1%)
      2,486,756,884 node-stores
      2,042,557,277 node-store-misses(82.1%)
      2,878,655,372 node-prefetches
      2,201,441,900 node-prefetch-misses

autoNUMA:

      4,538,975,144 node-loads
      2,666,374,830 node-load-misses(58.7%)
      2,148,950,354 node-stores
      1,682,942,931 node-store-misses(78.3%)
      2,191,139,475 node-prefetches
      1,633,752,109 node-prefetch-misses

The percentage of misses is higher for numa/core.  I would have expected
the performance increase be due to lower "node-misses", but perhaps I am
misinterpreting the perf data.

Lack of native THP migration may be enough to explain the
performance difference, despite autonuma having better node
locality.

Next I'll work on making multi-JVM more of an improvement, and
I'll also address any incoming regression reports.

I have issues with multiple KVM VMs running either JBB or
dbench-in-tmpfs, and I suspect whatever I am seeing is similar to
whatever multi-jvm in baremetal is.  What I typically see is no real
convergence of a single node for resource usage for any of the VMs.  For
example, when running 8 VMs, 10 vCPUs each, a VM may have the following
resource usage:

This is an issue.  I have tried understanding the new local/shared
and shared task grouping code, but have not wrapped my mind around
that code yet.

I will have to look at that code a few more times, and ask more
questions of Ingo and Peter (and maybe ask some of the same questions
again - I see that some of my comments were addressed in the next
version of the patch, but the email never got a reply).

--
All rights reversed

--
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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]