From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753535AbaHAPDM (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:03:12 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:52995 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750783AbaHAPDK (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2014 11:03:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 17:02:46 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Jirka Hladky Cc: Rik van Riel , Aaron Lu , LKML , lkp@01.org Subject: Re: [LKP] [sched/numa] a43455a1d57: +94.1% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local Message-ID: <20140801150246.GC3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <53d70ee6.JsUEmW5dWsv8dev+%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <53D72FF5.90908@intel.com> <20140729023940.37b6aebc@annuminas.surriel.com> <20140731104241.GA9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140731155723.GY3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53DA6BDA.8080000@redhat.com> <20140731162702.GZ19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53DA7129.7020100@redhat.com> <20140731173705.GC19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0tC/8VcTcTa+VwnR" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140731173705.GC19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --0tC/8VcTcTa+VwnR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 07:37:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:39:05PM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: > > I'm doing 3 iterations (3 runs) to get some statistics. To speed up the= test > > significantly please do the run with 20 warehouses only > > (or in general with #warehouses =3D=3D number of nodes * number of PHY= SICAL > > cores) >=20 > Yeah, went and did that for my 4 node machine, its got a ton more cores, = but I > matches the warehouses to it: >=20 > -a43455a1d57 tip/master >=20 > 979996.47 1144715.44 > 876146 1098499.07 > 1058974.18 1019499.38 > 1055951.59 1139405.22 > 970504.01 1099659.09 >=20 > 988314.45 1100355.64 (avg) > 75059.546179565 50085.7473975167(stdev) >=20 > So for 5 runs, tip/master (which includes the offending patch) wins hands= down. >=20 > Each run is 2 minutes. Because Rik asked for a43455a1d57^1 numbers: 546423.08 546558.63 545990.01 546015.98 some a43455a1d57 numbers: 538652.93 544333.57 542684.77 same setup and everything. So clearly the patches after that made 'some' difference indeed, seeing how tip/master is almost twice that. So the reason I didn't so a43455a1d57^1 vs a43455a1d57 is because we already fingered a commit, after that what you test is the revert of that commit, because revert is what you typically end up doing if a commit is fail. But on the state of tip/master, taking that commit out is a net negative for everything I've tested. --0tC/8VcTcTa+VwnR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT26wWAAoJEHZH4aRLwOS6+gUQAKlLsJF4051xp7nGEOQuJhoR PE899EevVXGHRlgs8o2gnGkCt3UnPdIFWihFtEqA2My1MHcVIzpkz+5nnmEZhBA9 nIwF2coF2qGro8WURaA3bXR7bADIWfZcnk3KZjJa2ibT87f+wHRq4/Firrb8GRU7 rairqulh83IV3FFdLlqAgkMuL20IH9dhPGNkJ4FrOzS6oz2qbXO6329qH/VC05+Z XAH61pEVfN7BYbOS2TNAfEGCgzV6Lr01kPhc/qeOLbauVCzVUENaw9Qe3gOpskFM PxjRqv3R6PkNtfL2oA/Zbg+7bz/X32R5mo2o+HCqQyT4IjURBRQsydfeszS4vdms /cokqo1b2H0CnU2BMZLxMSsb36Ql6xjcNdp2/jkHnZ5tFKdfy2/c5Jcmf/2ajwyo rA/vxHq6ykhtZSw71+3J7NnrNU0l4KrZflE66XhaJ9dVOTs826QIpFW0D0rzaHJv 7j9GCze5SG4Dt0xki2ocJJsyRTnBnxwlZpxOU7xcDIzGfTjTfsmuXwaSfmzXlmVr oXEOjkP0BUKcW8RVdM7/KkyGjmzX9mQOmDXggr3BFmrRmVJEeCg63M0nktG1OrVa A+IowCffoH7PRnP2K5fVgaKpYGhGdGgazCN9VO1XzfqXJdmyaQLTG1kh8vkOZb6x 9zKJUksAPV3jfyNgDuPg =ddls -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0tC/8VcTcTa+VwnR--