On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote: > The SPECjbb 4x JVM numbers are still very close to the > hard-binding results: > > Fri Dec 7 02:08:42 CET 2012 > spec1.txt: throughput = 188667.94 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec2.txt: throughput = 190109.31 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec3.txt: throughput = 191438.13 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec4.txt: throughput = 192508.34 SPECjbb2005 bops > -------------------------- > SUM: throughput = 762723.72 SPECjbb2005 bops > > And the same is true for !THP as well. I could not resist to throw all relevant trees on my own 4node machine and run a SPECjbb 4x JVM comparison. All results have been averaged over 10 runs. mainline: v3.7-rc8 autonuma: mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase balancenuma: mm-balancenuma-v10r3 numacore: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 The config is based on a F16 config with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and the relevant NUMA options enabled for the 4 trees. THP off: manual placement result: 125239 Auto result Man/Auto Mainline/Auto Variance mainline : 93945 0.750 1.000 5.91% autonuma : 123651 0.987 1.316 5.15% balancenuma : 97327 0.777 1.036 5.19% numacore : 123009 0.982 1.309 5.73% THP on: manual placement result: 143170 Auto result Auto/Manual Auto/Mainline Variance mainline : 104462 0.730 1.000 8.47% autonuma : 137363 0.959 1.315 5.81% balancenuma : 112183 0.784 1.074 11.58% numacore : 142728 0.997 1.366 2.94% So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page, with a slight advantage for numacore in the THP enabled case. balancenuma is closer to mainline than to autonuma/numacore. Thanks, tglx -- 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>