From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx109.postini.com [74.125.245.109]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A27566B0070 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 04:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jg9so3854647bkc.14 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:05:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:05:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] Automatic NUMA Balancing V4 Message-ID: <20121122090514.GA17769@gmail.com> References: <1353493312-8069-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20121121165342.GH8218@suse.de> <20121121170306.GA28811@gmail.com> <20121121172011.GI8218@suse.de> <20121121173316.GA29311@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121121173316.GA29311@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , Hugh Dickins , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Alex Shi , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one > > > > > shortly in the "Latest numa/core release, v16" thread along with the latest > > > > > schednuma figures I have available. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Report is linked here https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/202 > > > > > > > > I ended up cancelling the remaining tests and restarted with > > > > > > > > 1. schednuma + patches posted since so that works out as > > > > > > Mel, I'd like to ask you to refer to our tree as numa/core or > > > 'numacore' in the future. Would such a courtesy to use the > > > current name of our tree be possible? > > > > > > > Sure, no problem. > > Thanks! > > I ran a quick test with your 'balancenuma v4' tree and while > numa02 and numa01-THREAD-ALLOC performance is looking good, > numa01 performance does not look very good: > > mainline numa/core balancenuma-v4 > numa01: 340.3 139.4 276 secs > > 97% slower than numa/core. I mean numa/core was 97% faster. That transforms into balancenuma-v4 being 50.5% slower. Your numbers from yesterday showed an even bigger proportion: AUTONUMA BENCH 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 rc6-stats-v4r12 rc6-schednuma-v16r2 rc6-autonuma-v28fastr3 rc6-moron-v4r38 rc6-twostage-v4r38 rc6-thpmigrate-v4r38 Elapsed NUMA01 1668.03 ( 0.00%) 486.04 ( 70.86%) 794.10 ( 52.39%) 601.19 ( 63.96%) 1575.52 ( 5.55%) 1066.67 ( 36.05%) In your test numa/core was 240% times faster than mainline, 63% faster than autonuma and 119% faster than balancenuma-"rc6-thpmigrate-v4r38". 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