Re: [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha6

Andrew Theurer
2012-03-23T14:17:05Z

On 03/22/2012 01:56 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> AA> but now it's time to go back coding and add THP native
> AA> migration. That will benefit everyone, from cpuset in userland to
> AA> numa/sched.
>
> I dunno about everyone else, but I think the thing I'd like to see most
> (other than more interesting benchmarks)

We are working on the "more interesting benchmarks", starting with KVM
workloads. However, I must warn you all, more interesting = a lot more
time to run. These are a lot more complex in that they have real I/O,
and they can be a lot more challenging because there are response time
requirements (so fairness is an absolute requirement). We are getting a
baseline right now and re-running with our user-space VM-to-numa-node
placement program, which in the past achieved manual binding performance
or just slightly lower. We can then compare to these two solutions. If
there's something specific to collect (perhaps you have a lot of stats
or data in debugfs, etc) please let me know.

-Andrew Theurer
> is a broken out and documented
> set of patches instead of the monolithic commit you have now. I know you
> weren't probably planning to do that until numasched came along, but it
> sure would help me digest the differences in the two approaches.
>