On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 20:10 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Rik van Riel wrote: > > 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. > > When I made some fixes to the sched/numa native THP migration, > I did also try porting that (with Hannes's memcg fixes) to AutoNUMA. > > Here's the patch below: it appeared to be working just fine, but > you might find that it doesn't quite apply to whatever tree you're > using. I started from 3.6 autonuma28fast in aa.git, but had folded > in some of the equally applicable TLB flush optimizations too. > > There's also a little "Hack, remove after THP native migration" > retuning in mm/huge_memory.c which should probably be removed too. Thanks, this worked for me. The autoNUMA SPECjbb result is now much closer, just 4% lower than the numa/core result. The number of anon and anon-huge pages are now nearly the same. -Andrew Theurer -- 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>