Re: [PATCH 00/46] Automatic NUMA Balancing V4

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one
> > > > shortly in the "Latest numa/core release, v16" thread along with the latest
> > > > schednuma figures I have available.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Report is linked here https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/202
> > > 
> > > I ended up cancelling the remaining tests and restarted with
> > > 
> > > 1. schednuma + patches posted since so that works out as
> > 
> > Mel, I'd like to ask you to refer to our tree as numa/core or 
> > 'numacore' in the future. Would such a courtesy to use the 
> > current name of our tree be possible?
> > 
> 
> Sure, no problem.

Thanks!

I ran a quick test with your 'balancenuma v4' tree and while 
numa02 and numa01-THREAD-ALLOC performance is looking good, 
numa01 performance does not look very good:

                    mainline    numa/core      balancenuma-v4
     numa01:           340.3       139.4          276 secs

97% slower than numa/core.

I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well:

                                numa/core      balancenuma-v4
      SPECjbb  +THP:               655 k/sec      607 k/sec

Here it's 7.9% slower.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/