Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > I confirm that numa/core regresses significantly more without 
> > thp than the 6.3% regression I reported with thp in terms of 
> > throughput on the same system.  numa/core at 01aa90068b12 
> > ("sched: Use the best-buddy 'ideal cpu' in balancing 
> > decisions") had 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops whereas ec05a2311c35 
> > ("Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into sched/core") had 122246.90 
> > SPECjbb2005 bops, a 23.0% regression.
> 
> What is the base performance figure with THP disabled? Your 
> baseline was:
> 
>    sched/core at ec05a2311c35:    136918.34 SPECjbb2005 
> 
> Would be interesting to see how that kernel reacts to THP off.
> 

In summary, the benchmarks that I've collected thus far are:

THP enabled:

   numa/core at ec05a2311c35:	136918.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
   numa/core at 01aa90068b12:	128315.19 SPECjbb2005 bops (-6.3%)

THP disabled:

   numa/core at ec05a2311c35:	122246.90 SPECjbb2005 bops
   numa/core at 01aa90068b12:	 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops (-23.0%)
--
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/