From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx172.postini.com [74.125.245.172]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71B786B0070 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:41:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <50C62CE7.2000306@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:41:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 References: <1354839566-15697-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Weiner , Hugh Dickins 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. 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. -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751456Ab2LJSmp (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:42:45 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14490 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750803Ab2LJSmo (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:42:44 -0500 Message-ID: <50C62CE7.2000306@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:41:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Weiner , Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 References: <1354839566-15697-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. 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. -- All rights reversed