From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx189.postini.com [74.125.245.189]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 56FF26B0062 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:16:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:15:59 -0700 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16563E40041 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:15:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qALMFuHW329564 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:15:56 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qALMHmwf008186 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:17:49 -0700 Subject: Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted From: Andrew Theurer Reply-To: habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20121121115255.GA8218@suse.de> References: <1353291284-2998-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <20121119162909.GL8218@suse.de> <20121119191339.GA11701@gmail.com> <20121119211804.GM8218@suse.de> <20121119223604.GA13470@gmail.com> <20121120071704.GA14199@gmail.com> <20121120152933.GA17996@gmail.com> <20121120175647.GA23532@gmail.com> <1353462853.31820.93.camel@oc6622382223.ibm.com> <20121121115255.GA8218@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:15:52 -0600 Message-ID: <1353536152.31820.112.camel@oc6622382223.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , David Rientjes , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Thomas Gleixner , Johannes Weiner , Hugh Dickins On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 11:52 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:54:13PM -0600, Andrew Theurer wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > ( The 4x JVM regression is still an open bug I think - I'll > > > > re-check and fix that one next, no need to re-report it, > > > > I'm on it. ) > > > > > > So I tested this on !THP too and the combined numbers are now: > > > > > > | > > > [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ] | > > > [ tx/sec ] v3.7 | numa/core-v16 > > > [ higher is better ] ----- | ------------- > > > | > > > +THP: 639k | 655k +2.5% > > > -THP: 510k | 517k +1.3% > > > > > > So it's not a regression anymore, regardless of whether THP is > > > enabled or disabled. > > > > > > The current updated table of performance results is: > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > [ seconds ] v3.7 AutoNUMA | numa/core-v16 [ vs. v3.7] > > > [ lower is better ] ----- -------- | ------------- ----------- > > > | > > > numa01 340.3 192.3 | 139.4 +144.1% > > > numa01_THREAD_ALLOC 425.1 135.1 | 121.1 +251.0% > > > numa02 56.1 25.3 | 17.5 +220.5% > > > | > > > [ SPECjbb transactions/sec ] | > > > [ higher is better ] | > > > | > > > SPECjbb 1x32 +THP 524k 507k | 638k +21.7% > > > SPECjbb 1x32 !THP 395k | 512k +29.6% > > > | > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > | > > > [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ] | > > > [ tx/sec ] v3.7 numa/core-v16 > > > [ higher is better ] ----- | ------------- > > > | > > > +THP: 639k | 655k +2.5% > > > -THP: 510k | 517k +1.3% > > > > > > So I think I've addressed all regressions reported so far - if > > > anyone can still see something odd, please let me know so I can > > > reproduce and fix it ASAP. > > > > 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): > > > > I'm curious about possible effects with profiling. Can you rerun just > this test without any profiling and see if the gain is the same? My own > tests are running monitors but they only fire every 10 seconds and are > not running profiles. After using the patch Hugh provided, I did make a 2nd run, this time with no profiling at all, and the run was 2% higher. Not sure if this is due to profiling gone, or just run to run variance, but nevertheless a pretty low difference. -Andrew Theurer -- 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