On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 11/20/2012 08:54 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote: >> >> > I can confirm single JVM JBB is working well for me. I see a 30% >> > improvement over autoNUMA. What I can't make sense of is some perf >> > stats (taken at 80 warehouses on 4 x WST-EX, 512GB memory): >> >> AutoNUMA does not have native THP migration, that may explain some >> of the difference.
Plus, numa/core is sucking the milk of TLB-flsh-optimization from Rik. BTW, I want to see results of numa/core without such TLB boosts. > > When I made some fixes to the sched/numa native THP migration, > I did also try porting that (with Hannes's memcg fixes) to AutoNUMA. > Thanks a ton;) > + > + new_page = alloc_pages_node(numa_node_id(), > + (GFP_TRANSHUGE | GFP_THISNODE) & ~__GFP_WAIT, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER); Such a brand new page is selected to be migration target, why? Hillf > + if (!new_page) > + goto alloc_fail; -- 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/
