On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 11:09:47AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > * Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2013-06-28 19:24:22]: > > > * Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> [2013-06-26 15:37:59]: > > > > > It's several months overdue and everything was quiet after 3.8 came out > > > but I recently had a chance to revisit automatic NUMA balancing for a few > > > days. I looked at basic scheduler integration resulting in the following > > > small series. Much of the following is heavily based on the numacore > > > series > > > which in itself takes part of the autonuma series from back in November. > > > In > > > particular it borrows heavily from Peter Ziljstra's work in "sched, numa, > > > mm: Add adaptive NUMA affinity support" but deviates too much to preserve > > > Signed-off-bys. As before, if the relevant authors are ok with it I'll > > > add Signed-off-bys (or add them yourselves if you pick the patches up). > > > > > > Here is a snapshot of the results of running autonuma-benchmark running on 8 > > node 64 cpu system with hyper threading disabled. Ran 5 iterations for each > > setup > > > > KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() > > Testcase: Min Max Avg > > numa01: 1784.16 1864.15 1800.16 > > numa02: 32.07 32.72 32.59 > > > > KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + mel's patches > > Testcase: Min Max Avg %Change > > numa01: 1752.48 1859.60 1785.60 0.82% > > numa02: 47.21 60.58 53.43 -39.00% > > > > So numa02 case; we see a degradation of around 39%. > > > > I reran the tests again > > KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() > Testcase: Min Max Avg > numa01: 1784.16 1864.15 1800.16 > numa01_THREAD_ALLOC: 293.75 315.35 311.03 > numa02: 32.07 32.72 32.59 > numa02_SMT: 39.27 39.79 39.69 > > KernelVersion: 3.9.0-mainline_v39+() + your patches > Testcase: Min Max Avg %Change > numa01: 1720.40 1876.89 1767.75 1.83% > numa01_THREAD_ALLOC: 464.34 554.82 496.64 -37.37% > numa02: 52.02 58.57 56.21 -42.02% > numa02_SMT: 42.07 52.64 47.33 -16.14% >
Thanks. Each of the the two runs had 5 iterations and there is a difference in the reported average. Do you know what the standard deviation is of the results? I'm less concerned about the numa01 results as it is an adverse workload on machins with more than two sockets but the numa02 results are certainly of concern. My own testing for numa02 showed little or no change. Would you mind testing with "Increase NUMA PTE scanning when a new preferred node is selected" reverted please? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/
