* Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> This is an entirely valid line of inquiry IMO.
Btw., what I did was to simply look at David's profile on the
regressing system and I compared it to the profile I got on a
pretty similar (but unfortunately not identical and not
regressing) system. I saw 3 differences:
- the numa emulation faults
- the higher TLB miss cost
- numa/core's failure to handle 4K pages properly
And addressed those, in the hope of one of them making a
difference.
There's a fourth line of inquiry I'm pursuing as well: the node
assymetry that David and Paul mentioned could have a performance
effect as well - resulting from non-ideal placement under
numa/core.
That is not easy to cure - I have written a patch to take the
node assymetry into consideration, I'm still testing it with
David's topology simulated on a testbox:
numa=fake=4:10,20,20,30,20,10,20,20,20,20,10,20,30,20,20,10
Will send the patch out later.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
