* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:15:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 12/10/2012 01:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Indeed, when the system is fully loaded, numacore does very > > > well. > > > > Note that the latest (-v3) code also does well in under-loaded > > situations: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/331 > > > > Here's the 'perf bench numa' comparison to 'balancenuma': > > > > balancenuma | NUMA-tip > > [test unit] : -v10 | -v3 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > 2x1-bw-process : 6.136 | 9.647: 57.2% > > 3x1-bw-process : 7.250 | 14.528: 100.4% > > 4x1-bw-process : 6.867 | 18.903: 175.3% > > 8x1-bw-process : 7.974 | 26.829: 236.5% > > 8x1-bw-process-NOTHP : 5.937 | 22.237: 274.5% > > 16x1-bw-process : 5.592 | 29.294: 423.9% > > 4x1-bw-thread : 13.598 | 19.290: 41.9% > > 8x1-bw-thread : 16.356 | 26.391: 61.4% > > 16x1-bw-thread : 24.608 | 29.557: 20.1% > > 32x1-bw-thread : 25.477 | 30.232: 18.7% > > 2x3-bw-thread : 8.785 | 15.327: 74.5% > > 4x4-bw-thread : 6.366 | 27.957: 339.2% > > 4x6-bw-thread : 6.287 | 27.877: 343.4% > > 4x8-bw-thread : 5.860 | 28.439: 385.3% > > 4x8-bw-thread-NOTHP : 6.167 | 25.067: 306.5% > > 3x3-bw-thread : 8.235 | 21.560: 161.8% > > 5x5-bw-thread : 5.762 | 26.081: 352.6% > > 2x16-bw-thread : 5.920 | 23.269: 293.1% > > 1x32-bw-thread : 5.828 | 18.985: 225.8% > > numa02-bw : 29.054 | 31.431: 8.2% > > numa02-bw-NOTHP : 27.064 | 29.104: 7.5% > > numa01-bw-thread : 20.338 | 28.607: 40.7% > > numa01-bw-thread-NOTHP : 18.528 | 21.119: 14.0% > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > More than half of these testcases are under-loaded situations. > > > > > The main issues that have been observed with numacore are when > > > the system is only partially loaded. Something strange seems > > > to be going on that causes performance regressions in that > > > situation. > > > > I haven't seen such reports with -v3 yet, which is what Thomas > > tested. Mel has not tested -v3 yet AFAICS. > > > > Yes, I have. The drop I took and the results I posted to you > were based on a tip/master pull from December 9th. v3 was > released on December 7th and your release said to test based > on tip/master. The results are here > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/9/108 . Look at the columns > marked numafix-20121209 which is tip/master with a bodge on > top to remove the "if (p->nr_cpus_allowed != > num_online_cpus())" check. Ah, indeed - I saw those results but the 'numafix' tag threw me off. Looks like at least in terms of AutoNUMA-benchmark numbers you measured the best-ever results with the -v3 tree? That aspect is obviously good news. This part isn't: > > If there are any such instances left then I'll investigate, > > but right now it's looking pretty good. > > If you had read that report, you would know that I didn't have > results for specjbb with THP enabled due to the JVM crashing > with null pointer exceptions. Hm, it's the unified tree where most of the mm/ bits are the AutoNUMA bits from your tree. (It does not match 100%, because your tree has an ancient version of key memory usage statistics that the scheduler needs for its convergence model. I'll take a look at the differences.) Given how well the unified kernel performs, and given that the segfaults occur on your box, would you be willing to debug this a bit and help me out fixing the bug? 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>