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 B5DCB6B005A for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:13:17 -0500 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by d01dlp03.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1CCC90026 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:13:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qBAADE1T306236 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:13:14 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qBAADEN8016806 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:13:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:12:57 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/45] Automatic NUMA Balancing V7 Message-ID: <20121210094257.GB6348@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <1353612353-1576-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20121126145800.GK8218@suse.de> <20121128134930.GB20087@suse.de> <20121207104539.GB22164@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121210090730.GF1009@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121210090730.GF1009@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Arcangeli , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML > > > > Got a chance to run autonuma-benchmark on a 8 node, 64 core machine. > > the results are as below. (for each kernel I ran 5 iterations of > > autonuma-benchmark) > > > > Thanks, a test of v10 would also be appreciated. The differences between > V7 and V10 are small but do include a change in how migrate rate-limiting > is handled. It is unlikely it'll make a difference to this test but I'd > like to rule it out. > Yes, have queued it for testing. Will report on completion. > > KernelVersion: 3.7.0-rc3-mainline_v37rc7() Please read it as 3.7-rc3 > > What kernel is this? The name begins with 3.7-rc3 but then says > v37rc7. v37rc7 of what? I thought it might be v3.7-rc7 but it already said > it's 3.7-rc3 so I'm confused. Would it be possible to base the tests on > a similar baseline kernel such as 3.7.0-rc7 or 3.7.0-rc8? The > balancenuma patches should apply and the autonuma patches can be taken > from the mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase branch in > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma.git > Yes, for the next set of reports I have based autonuma branch on this branch. > Either way, the figures look bad. I'm trying to find a similar machine > but initially at least I have not had much luck. Can you post the .config > you used for balancenuma in case I can reproduce the problem on a 4-node > machine please? Are all the nodes the same size? > No all nodes are not of same size There are 6 32 GB nodes and 2 64 GB nodes. Will post the balancenuma config along with results. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- 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