Re: [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha6

[Andrew Theurer]

On 03/22/2012 01:56 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> AA>  but now it's time to go back coding and add THP native
> AA>  migration. That will benefit everyone, from cpuset in userland to
> AA>  numa/sched.
>
> I dunno about everyone else, but I think the thing I'd like to see most
> (other than more interesting benchmarks)

We are working on the "more interesting benchmarks", starting with KVM 
workloads.  However, I must warn you all, more interesting = a lot more 
time to run.  These are a lot more complex in that they have real I/O, 
and they can be a lot more challenging because there are response time 
requirements (so fairness is an absolute requirement).  We are getting a 
baseline right now and re-running with our user-space VM-to-numa-node 
placement program, which in the past achieved manual binding performance 
or just slightly lower.  We can then compare to these two solutions.  If 
there's something specific to collect (perhaps you have a lot of stats 
or data in debugfs, etc) please let me know.

-Andrew Theurer
>   is a broken out and documented
> set of patches instead of the monolithic commit you have now. I know you
> weren't probably planning to do that until numasched came along, but it
> sure would help me digest the differences in the two approaches.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/