lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [GIT TREE] Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3

    * Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:

    > On 12/10/2012 01:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    >
    > > So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page,
    > > with a slight advantage for numacore in the THP enabled
    > > case. balancenuma is closer to mainline than to
    > > autonuma/numacore.
    >
    > Indeed, when the system is fully loaded, numacore does very
    > well.

    Note that the latest (-v3) code also does well in under-loaded
    situations:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/331

    Here's the 'perf bench numa' comparison to 'balancenuma':

    balancenuma | NUMA-tip
    [test unit] : -v10 | -v3
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    2x1-bw-process : 6.136 | 9.647: 57.2%
    3x1-bw-process : 7.250 | 14.528: 100.4%
    4x1-bw-process : 6.867 | 18.903: 175.3%
    8x1-bw-process : 7.974 | 26.829: 236.5%
    8x1-bw-process-NOTHP : 5.937 | 22.237: 274.5%
    16x1-bw-process : 5.592 | 29.294: 423.9%
    4x1-bw-thread : 13.598 | 19.290: 41.9%
    8x1-bw-thread : 16.356 | 26.391: 61.4%
    16x1-bw-thread : 24.608 | 29.557: 20.1%
    32x1-bw-thread : 25.477 | 30.232: 18.7%
    2x3-bw-thread : 8.785 | 15.327: 74.5%
    4x4-bw-thread : 6.366 | 27.957: 339.2%
    4x6-bw-thread : 6.287 | 27.877: 343.4%
    4x8-bw-thread : 5.860 | 28.439: 385.3%
    4x8-bw-thread-NOTHP : 6.167 | 25.067: 306.5%
    3x3-bw-thread : 8.235 | 21.560: 161.8%
    5x5-bw-thread : 5.762 | 26.081: 352.6%
    2x16-bw-thread : 5.920 | 23.269: 293.1%
    1x32-bw-thread : 5.828 | 18.985: 225.8%
    numa02-bw : 29.054 | 31.431: 8.2%
    numa02-bw-NOTHP : 27.064 | 29.104: 7.5%
    numa01-bw-thread : 20.338 | 28.607: 40.7%
    numa01-bw-thread-NOTHP : 18.528 | 21.119: 14.0%
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    More than half of these testcases are under-loaded situations.

    > The main issues that have been observed with numacore are when
    > the system is only partially loaded. Something strange seems
    > to be going on that causes performance regressions in that
    > situation.

    I haven't seen such reports with -v3 yet, which is what Thomas
    tested. Mel has not tested -v3 yet AFAICS.

    If there are any such instances left then I'll investigate, but
    right now it's looking pretty good.

    Thanks,

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-12-11 01:01    [W:2.831 / U:0.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site