Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted

[Andrew Theurer]

On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 20:10 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 11/20/2012 08:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > 
> > > I can confirm single JVM JBB is working well for me.  I see a 30%
> > > improvement over autoNUMA.  What I can't make sense of is some perf
> > > stats (taken at 80 warehouses on 4 x WST-EX, 512GB memory):
> > 
> > AutoNUMA does not have native THP migration, that may explain some
> > of the difference.
> 
> When I made some fixes to the sched/numa native THP migration,
> I did also try porting that (with Hannes's memcg fixes) to AutoNUMA.
> 
> Here's the patch below: it appeared to be working just fine, but
> you might find that it doesn't quite apply to whatever tree you're
> using.  I started from 3.6 autonuma28fast in aa.git, but had folded
> in some of the equally applicable TLB flush optimizations too.
> 
> There's also a little "Hack, remove after THP native migration"
> retuning in mm/huge_memory.c which should probably be removed too.

Thanks, this worked for me.  The autoNUMA SPECjbb result is now much
closer, just 4% lower than the numa/core result.  The number of anon and
anon-huge pages are now nearly the same.

-Andrew Theurer

--
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/