From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:32:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121210193219.GM1009@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1212101902050.4422@ionos>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The SPECjbb 4x JVM numbers are still very close to the
> > hard-binding results:
> >
> > Fri Dec 7 02:08:42 CET 2012
> > spec1.txt: throughput = 188667.94 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > spec2.txt: throughput = 190109.31 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > spec3.txt: throughput = 191438.13 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > spec4.txt: throughput = 192508.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
> > --------------------------
> > SUM: throughput = 762723.72 SPECjbb2005 bops
> >
> > And the same is true for !THP as well.
>
> I could not resist to throw all relevant trees on my own 4node machine
> and run a SPECjbb 4x JVM comparison. All results have been averaged
> over 10 runs.
>
> mainline: v3.7-rc8
> autonuma: mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase
> balancenuma: mm-balancenuma-v10r3
> numacore: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3
>
> The config is based on a F16 config with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and the
> relevant NUMA options enabled for the 4 trees.
>
Ok, I had PREEMPT enabled so we differ on that at least. I don't know if
it would be enough to hide the problems that led to the JVM crashing on
me for the latest version of numacore or not.
> THP off: manual placement result: 125239
>
> Auto result Man/Auto Mainline/Auto Variance
> mainline : 93945 0.750 1.000 5.91%
> autonuma : 123651 0.987 1.316 5.15%
> balancenuma : 97327 0.777 1.036 5.19%
> numacore : 123009 0.982 1.309 5.73%
>
>
> THP on: manual placement result: 143170
>
> Auto result Auto/Manual Auto/Mainline Variance
> mainline : 104462 0.730 1.000 8.47%
> autonuma : 137363 0.959 1.315 5.81%
> balancenuma : 112183 0.784 1.074 11.58%
> numacore : 142728 0.997 1.366 2.94%
>
> So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page, with a slight
> advantage for numacore in the THP enabled case. balancenuma is closer
> to mainline than to autonuma/numacore.
>
I would expect balancenuma to be closer to mainline than autonuma, whatever
about numacore which I get mixed results for. balancenumas objective was
not to be the best, it was meant to be a baseline that either autonuma
or numacore could compete based on scheduler policies for while the MM
portions would be common to either. If I thought otherwise I would have
spent the last 2 weeks working on the scheduler aspects which would have
been generally unhelpful.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-10 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-07 0:19 [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 1/9] numa, sched: Fix NUMA tick ->numa_shared setting Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 2/9] numa, sched: Add tracking of runnable NUMA tasks Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 3/9] numa, sched: Implement wake-cpu migration support Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 4/9] numa, mm, sched: Implement last-CPU+PID hash tracking Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 5/9] numa, mm, sched: Fix NUMA affinity tracking logic Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 6/9] numa, mm: Fix !THP, 4K-pte "2M-emu" NUMA fault handling Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 7/9] numa, sched: Improve staggered convergence Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 8/9] numa, sched: Improve directed convergence Ingo Molnar
2012-12-07 0:19 ` [PATCH 9/9] numa, sched: Streamline and fix numa_allow_migration() use Ingo Molnar
2012-12-10 18:22 ` [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 Thomas Gleixner
2012-12-10 18:41 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-10 19:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-12-10 19:28 ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-10 20:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-12-10 20:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-12-10 21:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-12-10 22:19 ` Mel Gorman
2012-12-10 19:32 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121210193219.GM1009@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).