On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I confirm that numa/core regresses significantly more without
> > thp than the 6.3% regression I reported with thp in terms of
> > throughput on the same system. numa/core at 01aa90068b12
> > ("sched: Use the best-buddy 'ideal cpu' in balancing
> > decisions") had 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops whereas ec05a2311c35
> > ("Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into sched/core") had 122246.90
> > SPECjbb2005 bops, a 23.0% regression.
>
> What is the base performance figure with THP disabled? Your
> baseline was:
>
> sched/core at ec05a2311c35: 136918.34 SPECjbb2005
>
> Would be interesting to see how that kernel reacts to THP off.
>
In summary, the benchmarks that I've collected thus far are:
THP enabled:
numa/core at ec05a2311c35: 136918.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
numa/core at 01aa90068b12: 128315.19 SPECjbb2005 bops (-6.3%)
THP disabled:
numa/core at ec05a2311c35: 122246.90 SPECjbb2005 bops
numa/core at 01aa90068b12: 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops (-23.0%)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
