[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches
    On 10/30/2012 08:20 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
    > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >> Hi all,
    >> Here's a re-post of the NUMA scheduling and migration improvement
    >> patches that we are working on. These include techniques from
    >> AutoNUMA and the sched/numa tree and form a unified basis - it
    >> has got all the bits that look good and mergeable.
    > Thanks for the repost. I have not even started a review yet as I was
    > travelling and just online today. It will be another day or two before I can
    > start but I was at least able to do a comparison test between autonuma and
    > schednuma today to see which actually performs the best. Even without the
    > review I was able to stick on similar vmstats as was applied to autonuma
    > to give a rough estimate of the relative overhead of both implementations.

    Peter, Ingo,

    do you have any comments on the performance measurements
    by Mel?

    Any ideas on how to fix sched/numa or numa/core?

    At this point, I suspect the easiest way forward might be
    to merge the basic infrastructure from Mel's combined
    tree (in -mm? in -tip?), so we can experiment with different
    NUMA placement policies on top.

    That way we can do apples to apples comparison of the
    policies, and figure out what works best, and why.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-11-09 10:21    [W:4.037 / U:0.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site