Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:33:16 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/46] Automatic NUMA Balancing V4 |
| |
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one > > > > shortly in the "Latest numa/core release, v16" thread along with the latest > > > > schednuma figures I have available. > > > > > > > > > > Report is linked here https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/202 > > > > > > I ended up cancelling the remaining tests and restarted with > > > > > > 1. schednuma + patches posted since so that works out as > > > > Mel, I'd like to ask you to refer to our tree as numa/core or > > 'numacore' in the future. Would such a courtesy to use the > > current name of our tree be possible? > > > > Sure, no problem.
Thanks!
I ran a quick test with your 'balancenuma v4' tree and while numa02 and numa01-THREAD-ALLOC performance is looking good, numa01 performance does not look very good:
mainline numa/core balancenuma-v4 numa01: 340.3 139.4 276 secs
97% slower than numa/core.
I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well:
numa/core balancenuma-v4 SPECjbb +THP: 655 k/sec 607 k/sec
Here it's 7.9% slower.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |