From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx145.postini.com [74.125.245.145]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF0176B00BE for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 06:53:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:52:55 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1353462853.31820.93.camel@oc6622382223.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Theurer 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 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. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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