From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754822AbbFWOhG (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:37:06 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:34137 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753834AbbFWOg5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:36:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:36:52 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Srikar Dronamraju , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa Cc: Rik van Riel , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched:Consider imbalance_pct when comparing loads in numa_has_capacity Message-ID: <20150623143652.GA31134@gmail.com> References: <1434455762-30857-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1434455762-30857-3-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <55803511.1060601@redhat.com> <20150622162958.GB32412@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150623081038.GA26231@gmail.com> <20150623130114.GD32412@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150623130114.GD32412@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > * Ingo Molnar [2015-06-23 10:10:39]: > > > Please let me know if there are any better ways to observe the > > > spread. [...] > > > > There are. I see you are using prehistoric tooling, but see the various NUMA > > convergence latency measurement utilities in 'perf bench numa': > > > > vega:~> cat numa01-THREAD_ALLOC > > > > perf bench numa mem --no-data_rand_walk -p 2 -t 16 -G 0 -P 0 -T 192 -l 1000 -zZ0c $@ > > > > You can generate very flexible setups of NUMA access patterns, and measure their > > behavior accurately. > > > > It's all so much more capable and more flexible than autonumabench ... > > Okay, thanks for the hint, I will try this out in future. > > > > > Also, when you are trying to report numbers for multiple runs, please use > > something like: > > > > perf stat --null --repeat 3 ... > > > > This will run the workload 3 times (doing only time measurement) and report the > > stddev in a human readable form. > > > > Thanks again for this hint. Wouldnt system time/ user time also matter? Yeah, would be nice to add stime/utime output to 'perf stat', so that it's an easy replacement for /usr/bin/time. I've Cc:-ed perf folks who might be able to help out. Thanks, Ingo