lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted
From
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 11/20/2012 08:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
>>
>> > I can confirm single JVM JBB is working well for me. I see a 30%
>> > improvement over autoNUMA. What I can't make sense of is some perf
>> > stats (taken at 80 warehouses on 4 x WST-EX, 512GB memory):
>>
>> AutoNUMA does not have native THP migration, that may explain some
>> of the difference.

Plus, numa/core is sucking the milk of TLB-flsh-optimization from Rik.

BTW, I want to see results of numa/core without such TLB boosts.

>
> When I made some fixes to the sched/numa native THP migration,
> I did also try porting that (with Hannes's memcg fixes) to AutoNUMA.
>
Thanks a ton;)

> +
> + new_page = alloc_pages_node(numa_node_id(),
> + (GFP_TRANSHUGE | GFP_THISNODE) & ~__GFP_WAIT, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);

Such a brand new page is selected to be migration target, why?

Hillf
> + if (!new_page)
> + goto alloc_fail;


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-21 14:21    [W:0.024 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site