On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:33:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. > It would be. numa01 is an adverse workload where all threads are hammering the same memory. The two-stage filter in balancenuma restricts the amount of migration it does so it ends up in a situation where it cannot balance properly. It'll do some migration if the PTE updates happen fast enough but that's about it. It needs a proper policy on top to detect this situation and interleave the memory between nodes to at least maximise the available memory bandwidth. This would replace the two-stage filter which is there to mitigate a ping-pong effect. > I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well: > > numa/core balancenuma-v4 > SPECjbb +THP: 655 k/sec 607 k/sec > Cool. Lets see what we have here. I have some questions; You say you ran with 32 warehouses. Was this a single run with just 32 warehouses or you did a specjbb run up to 32 warehouses and use the figure specjbb spits out? If it ran for multiple warehouses, how did each number of warehouses do? I ask because sometimes we do worse for low numbers of warehouses and better at high numbers, particularly around where the workload peaks. Was this a single JVM configuration? What is the comparison with a baseline kernel? You say you ran with balancenuma-v4. Was that the full series including the broken placement policy or did you test with just patches 1-37 as I asked in the patch leader? > Here it's 7.9% slower. > And in comparison to a vanilla kernel? Bear in mind that my objective was to have a foundation that did noticably better than mainline that a proper placement and scheduling policy could be built on top of. Thanks! -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>