From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx164.postini.com [74.125.245.164]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 730336B0081 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:01:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ee0-f41.google.com with SMTP id d41so4055835eek.14 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:01:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:01:10 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16 Message-ID: <20121120080110.GA14785@gmail.com> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Linus Torvalds , Mel Gorman , 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 * David Rientjes 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. Thanks, Ingo -- 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