From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Satheesh Rajendran Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Fixup for discontiguous/sparse numa nodes Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:04:38 +0530 Message-ID: <1505813678.16495.5.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: acme@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Cc: srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bala24@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: linux-perf-users.vger.kernel.org Hi Arnaldo, Please let me know if any further comments. Thanks in advance :-) Regards, -Satheesh.On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 15:45 +0530, sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > From: Satheesh Rajendran > > Certain systems would have sparse/discontinguous > numa nodes. > perf bench numa doesnt work well on such nodes. > 1. It shows wrong values. > 2. It can hang. > 3. It can show redundant information for non-existant nodes. > >  #numactl -H > available: 2 nodes (0,8) > node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > node 0 size: 61352 MB > node 0 free: 57168 MB > node 8 cpus: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > node 8 size: 65416 MB > node 8 free: 36593 MB > node distances: > node   0   8 >   0:  10  40 >   8:  40  10 > > Scenario 1: > > Before Fix: >  # perf bench numa mem --no-data_rand_walk -p 2 -t 20 -G 0 -P 3072 -T > 0 -l 50 -c -s 1000 > ... > ... >  # 40 tasks will execute (on 9 nodes, 16 CPUs): ----> Wrong number of > nodes > ... >  #    2.0%  [0.2 > mins]  1/1   0/0   0/0   0/0   0/0   0/0   0/0   0/0   4/1  [ 4/2 ] > l:  0-0   (  0) ----> Shows info on non-existant nodes. > > After Fix: >  # ./perf bench numa mem --no-data_rand_walk -p 2 -t 20 -G 0 -P 3072 > -T 0 -l 50 -c -s 1000 > ... > ... >  # 40 tasks will execute (on 2 nodes, 16 CPUs): > ...  >  #    2.0%  [0.2 mins]  9/1   0/0  [ 9/1 ] l:  0-0   (  0) >  #    4.0%  [0.4 mins] 21/2  19/1  [ 2/3 ] l:  0-1   (  1) {1-2} > > Scenario 2: > > Before Fix: >  # perf bench numa all >  # Running numa/mem benchmark... > .... > ... >  # Running RAM-bw-remote, "perf bench numa mem -p 1 -t 1 -P 1024 -C 0 > -M 1 -s 20 -zZq --thp  1 --no-data_rand_walk" > perf: bench/numa.c:306: bind_to_memnode: Assertion `!(ret)' failed. > ------------> Got hung > > After Fix: >  # ./perf bench numa all >  # Running numa/mem benchmark... > .... > ... >  # Running RAM-bw-remote, "perf bench numa mem -p 1 -t 1 -P 1024 -C 0 > -M 1 -s 20 -zZq --thp  1 --no-data_rand_walk" > >  # NOTE: ignoring bind NODEs starting at NODE#1 >  # NOTE: 0 tasks mem-bound, 1 tasks unbound >          20.017 secs slowest (max) thread-runtime >          20.000 secs fastest (min) thread-runtime >          20.006 secs average thread-runtime >           0.043 % difference between max/avg runtime >         413.794 GB data processed, per thread >         413.794 GB data processed, total >           0.048 nsecs/byte/thread runtime >          20.672 GB/sec/thread speed >          20.672 GB/sec total speed > > Changes in v2: > Fixed review comments for function names and alloc failure handle > > Changes in v3: > Coding Style fixes. > > > Satheesh Rajendran (2): >   perf/bench/numa: Add functions to detect sparse numa nodes >   perf/bench/numa: Handle discontiguous/sparse numa nodes > >  tools/perf/bench/numa.c | 61 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >