Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:17:14 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/19] sched-numa rewrite |
| |
Hi everyone,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > After having had a talk with Rik about all this NUMA nonsense where he proposed > the scheme implemented in the next to last patch, I came up with a related > means of doing the home-node selection. > > I've also switched to (ab)using PROT_NONE for driving the migration faults.
I'm glad we agree on the introduction of the numa hinting page faults.
I run a benchmark to compare your sched-numa rewrite with autonuma22:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/autonuma/autonuma-vs-sched-numa-rewrite-20120808.pdf
> These patches go on top of tip/master with origin/master (Linus' tree) merged in.
It applied clean (with git am) on top of 3.6-rc1 (0d7614f09c1ebdbaa1599a5aba7593f147bf96ee) which already had a pull of sched-core from tip and other tip bits. If that's not ok let me know which commit I should use, and I'll repeat.
I released autonuma22 yesterday to provide an exact commit (f958aa119a8ec417571ea8bdb527182d8ebe8b68) in case somebody wants to reproduce the numbers on 2 node systems.
The autonuma-benchmark used to run the benchmark was at commit 65d93e485f09e3c1005e8c55cb5b1f97bd3a9ed8 which matches tag 0.1:
git clone git://gitorious.org/autonuma-benchmark/autonuma-benchmark.git
I'll update the pdf shortly by adding 8 node results too.
Thanks, Andrea
| |