* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one > > > > shortly in the "Latest numa/core release, v16" thread along with the latest > > > > schednuma figures I have available. > > > > > > > > > > Report is linked here https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/202 > > > > > > I ended up cancelling the remaining tests and restarted with > > > > > > 1. schednuma + patches posted since so that works out as > > > > Mel, I'd like to ask you to refer to our tree as numa/core or > > 'numacore' in the future. Would such a courtesy to use the > > current name of our tree be possible? > > > > Sure, no problem. Thanks! I ran a quick test with your 'balancenuma v4' tree and while numa02 and numa01-THREAD-ALLOC performance is looking good, numa01 performance does not look very good: mainline numa/core balancenuma-v4 numa01: 340.3 139.4 276 secs 97% slower than numa/core. I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well: numa/core balancenuma-v4 SPECjbb +THP: 655 k/sec 607 k/sec Here it's 7.9% slower. 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>