On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 11:52 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:54:13PM -0600, Andrew Theurer wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > ( The 4x JVM regression is still an open bug I think - I'll > > > > re-check and fix that one next, no need to re-report it, > > > > I'm on it. ) > > > > > > So I tested this on !THP too and the combined numbers are now: > > > > > > | > > > [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ] | > > > [ tx/sec ] v3.7 | numa/core-v16 > > > [ higher is better ] ----- | ------------- > > > | > > > +THP: 639k | 655k +2.5% > > > -THP: 510k | 517k +1.3% > > > > > > So it's not a regression anymore, regardless of whether THP is > > > enabled or disabled. > > > > > > The current updated table of performance results is: > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > [ seconds ] v3.7 AutoNUMA | numa/core-v16 [ vs. v3.7] > > > [ lower is better ] ----- -------- | ------------- ----------- > > > | > > > numa01 340.3 192.3 | 139.4 +144.1% > > > numa01_THREAD_ALLOC 425.1 135.1 | 121.1 +251.0% > > > numa02 56.1 25.3 | 17.5 +220.5% > > > | > > > [ SPECjbb transactions/sec ] | > > > [ higher is better ] | > > > | > > > SPECjbb 1x32 +THP 524k 507k | 638k +21.7% > > > SPECjbb 1x32 !THP 395k | 512k +29.6% > > > | > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > | > > > [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ] | > > > [ tx/sec ] v3.7 numa/core-v16 > > > [ higher is better ] ----- | ------------- > > > | > > > +THP: 639k | 655k +2.5% > > > -THP: 510k | 517k +1.3% > > > > > > So I think I've addressed all regressions reported so far - if > > > anyone can still see something odd, please let me know so I can > > > reproduce and fix it ASAP. > > > > 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): > > > > I'm curious about possible effects with profiling. Can you rerun just > this test without any profiling and see if the gain is the same? My own > tests are running monitors but they only fire every 10 seconds and are > not running profiles. After using the patch Hugh provided, I did make a 2nd run, this time with no profiling at all, and the run was 2% higher. Not sure if this is due to profiling gone, or just run to run variance, but nevertheless a pretty low difference. -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>