From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753096AbbFVQE5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:04:57 -0400 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.7]:58909 "EHLO e28smtp07.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751420AbbFVQEt (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:04:49 -0400 X-Helo: d28dlp02.in.ibm.com X-MailFrom: srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:34:37 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,numa: document and fix numa_preferred_nid setting Message-ID: <20150622160437.GD16576@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20150616155450.62ec234b@cuia.usersys.redhat.com> <20150618155547.GA16576@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5582EC99.8040005@redhat.com> <20150618164140.GB16576@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5582F944.6080204@redhat.com> <20150619171633.GC16576@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <558456DB.3040108@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <558456DB.3040108@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15062216-0025-0000-0000-000005744F7D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Would you happen to have 2 instance and 4 instance SPECjbb > numbers, too? The single instance numbers seem to be within > the margin of error, but I would expect multi-instance numbers > to show more dramatic changes, due to changes in how workloads > converge... > > Those behave very differently from single instance, especially > with the "always set the preferred_nid, even if we moved the > task to a node we do NOT prefer" patch... > > It would be good to understand the behaviour of these patches > under more circumstances. Here are specjbb2005 numbers with 1 JVM per System, 2 JVMs per System and 4 JVMs per System. Plain 4.1.0-rc7-tip (i) tip + Rik's ++ (ii) tip + Srikar's ++ (iii) tip + Srikar's + Modified Rik's patch (iv) (i) = Plain 4.1.0-rc7-tip = tip = 4.1.0-rc7 (b7ca96b) (ii) = tip + only Rik's suggested patches = (i) + Rik's fix numa_preferred_nid setting + Srikar's numa hotness + correct nid for evaluating task weight (iii) = tip + Srikar's ++ (iii) = (i) + Srikar's numa hotness + correct nid for evaluating task weight + numa_has_capacity fix + always update preferred node (iv) = tip + Srikar's ++ (iv) = (i) + Srikar's numa hotness + correct nid for evaluating task weight + numa_has_capacity fix + Rik's modified patch. (Rik's modified patch == I removed node_isset check before setting nid as the preferred node) jbb2005_1JVMperSYSTEM Plain 4.1.0-rc7-tip (i) Metric: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change bopsperJVM: 265519.00 272466.00 269377.80 2391.04 tip + Rik's ++ (ii) bopsperJVM: 264298.00 271236.00 266818.20 2579.62 -0.94% tip + Srikar's ++ (iii) bopsperJVM: 266774.00 272434.00 269839.60 2083.19 0.17% tip + Srikar's + Rik's (iv) bopsperJVM: 265037.00 274419.00 269280.00 3146.74 -0.04% jbb2005_2JVMperSYSTEM Plain 4.1.0-rc7-tip (i) Metric: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change bopsperJVM: 269575.00 288495.00 279910.80 6151.49 tip + Srikar's ++ (iii) bopsperJVM: 278810.00 287706.00 282514.00 2946.37 0.90% tip + Rik's ++ (ii) bopsperJVM: 286785.00 289515.00 288311.80 1206.66 2.90% tip + Srikar's + Rik's (iv) bopsperJVM: 283295.00 293466.00 287848.80 3427.06 2.70% jbb2005_4JVMperSYSTEM Plain 4.1.0-rc7-tip (i) Metric: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change bopsperJVM: 248392.00 263826.00 257263.20 5946.44 tip + Rik's ++ (ii) bopsperJVM: 257057.00 260303.00 258819.00 1234.46 0.60% tip + Srikar's ++ (iii) bopsperJVM: 252968.00 262006.00 257321.80 3131.00 0.02% tip + Srikar's + Rik's (iv) bopsperJVM: 257063.00 266196.00 262547.80 3099.57 1.99% Summary: While Rik's suggested patchset performs the best in 2 JVM case and numa01. A modified version of his patch, provides good performance in 2 JVM, 4 JVM cases and numa01. However these two patchsets dont regress in numa02 (probably a little less with modified patch) -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/