> > > > Got a chance to run autonuma-benchmark on a 8 node, 64 core machine. > > the results are as below. (for each kernel I ran 5 iterations of > > autonuma-benchmark) > > > > Thanks, a test of v10 would also be appreciated. The differences between > V7 and V10 are small but do include a change in how migrate rate-limiting > is handled. It is unlikely it'll make a difference to this test but I'd > like to rule it out. > Yes, have queued it for testing. Will report on completion. > > KernelVersion: 3.7.0-rc3-mainline_v37rc7() Please read it as 3.7-rc3 > > What kernel is this? The name begins with 3.7-rc3 but then says > v37rc7. v37rc7 of what? I thought it might be v3.7-rc7 but it already said > it's 3.7-rc3 so I'm confused. Would it be possible to base the tests on > a similar baseline kernel such as 3.7.0-rc7 or 3.7.0-rc8? The > balancenuma patches should apply and the autonuma patches can be taken > from the mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase branch in > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma.git > Yes, for the next set of reports I have based autonuma branch on this branch. > Either way, the figures look bad. I'm trying to find a similar machine > but initially at least I have not had much luck. Can you post the .config > you used for balancenuma in case I can reproduce the problem on a 4-node > machine please? Are all the nodes the same size? > No all nodes are not of same size There are 6 32 GB nodes and 2 64 GB nodes. Will post the balancenuma config along with results. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- 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>