Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:45:55 +0800 | Subject | Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted | From | Hillf Danton <> |
| |
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;
| |