* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. I mean numa/core was 97% faster. That transforms into balancenuma-v4 being 50.5% slower. Your numbers from yesterday showed an even bigger proportion: AUTONUMA BENCH 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 rc6-stats-v4r12 rc6-schednuma-v16r2 rc6-autonuma-v28fastr3 rc6-moron-v4r38 rc6-twostage-v4r38 rc6-thpmigrate-v4r38 Elapsed NUMA01 1668.03 ( 0.00%) 486.04 ( 70.86%) 794.10 ( 52.39%) 601.19 ( 63.96%) 1575.52 ( 5.55%) 1066.67 ( 36.05%) In your test numa/core was 240% times faster than mainline, 63% faster than autonuma and 119% faster than balancenuma-"rc6-thpmigrate-v4r38". 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>