Messages in this thread | | | From | Barry Song <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v15 0/6] Add NUMA-awareness to qspinlock | Date | Thu, 30 Sep 2021 17:44:47 +0800 |
| |
> We have done some performance evaluation with the locktorture module > as well as with several benchmarks from the will-it-scale repo. > The following locktorture results are from an Oracle X5-4 server > (four Intel Xeon E7-8895 v3 @ 2.60GHz sockets with 18 hyperthreaded > cores each). Each number represents an average (over 25 runs) of the > total number of ops (x10^7) reported at the end of each run. The > standard deviation is also reported in (), and in general is about 3% > from the average. The 'stock' kernel is v5.12.0,
I assume x5-4 server has the crossbar topology and its numa diameter is 1hop, and all tests were done on this kind of symmetrical topology. Am I right?
┌─┐ ┌─┐ │ ├─────────────────┤ │ └─┤1 1└┬┘ │ 1 1 │ │ 1 1 │ │ 1 1 │ │ 1 │ │ 1 1 │ │ 1 1 │ │ 1 1 │ ┌┼┐1 1 ├─┐ │┼┼─────────────────┤ │ └─┘ └─┘
what if the hardware is using the ring topology and other topologies with 2-hops or even 3-hops such as:
┌─┐ ┌─┐ │ ├─────────────────┤ │ └─┤ └┬┘ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┌┤ ├─┐ │┼┬─────────────────┤ │ └─┘ └─┘
or:
┌───┐ ┌───┐ ┌────┐ ┌─────┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ├───┼───────┼───┼──────┼────┼──────┼─────┤ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └───┘ └───┘ └────┘ └─────┘
do we need to consider the distances of numa nodes in the secondary queue? does it still make sense to treat everyone else equal in secondary queue?
Thanks barry
| |