On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The SPECjbb 4x JVM numbers are still very close to the
> hard-binding results:
>
> Fri Dec 7 02:08:42 CET 2012
> spec1.txt: throughput = 188667.94 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec2.txt: throughput = 190109.31 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec3.txt: throughput = 191438.13 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec4.txt: throughput = 192508.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
> --------------------------
> SUM: throughput = 762723.72 SPECjbb2005 bops
>
> And the same is true for !THP as well.
I could not resist to throw all relevant trees on my own 4node machine
and run a SPECjbb 4x JVM comparison. All results have been averaged
over 10 runs.
mainline: v3.7-rc8
autonuma: mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase
balancenuma: mm-balancenuma-v10r3
numacore: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3
The config is based on a F16 config with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and the
relevant NUMA options enabled for the 4 trees.
THP off: manual placement result: 125239
Auto result Man/Auto Mainline/Auto Variance
mainline : 93945 0.750 1.000 5.91%
autonuma : 123651 0.987 1.316 5.15%
balancenuma : 97327 0.777 1.036 5.19%
numacore : 123009 0.982 1.309 5.73%
THP on: manual placement result: 143170
Auto result Auto/Manual Auto/Mainline Variance
mainline : 104462 0.730 1.000 8.47%
autonuma : 137363 0.959 1.315 5.81%
balancenuma : 112183 0.784 1.074 11.58%
numacore : 142728 0.997 1.366 2.94%
So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page, with a slight
advantage for numacore in the THP enabled case. balancenuma is closer
to mainline than to autonuma/numacore.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
