* Andrea Arcangeli [2012-10-14 06:57:16]:
> I'll release an autonuma29 behaving like 28fast if there are no
> surprises. The new algorithm change in 28fast will also save memory
> once I rewrite it properly.
>
Here are my results of specjbb2005 on a 2 node box (Still on autonuma27, but
plan to
>
> Interesting. So numa01 should be improved in autonuma28fast. Not sure
> why the hard binds show any difference, but I'm more concerned in
> optimizing numa01. I get the same results from hard bindings on
> upstream or autonuma, strange.
>
> Could you repeat only numa01 with the origin/autonum
Hi Srikar,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Andrea Arcangeli [2012-10-04 01:50:42]:
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > This is a new AutoNUMA27 release for Linux v3.6.
> >
>
>
> Here results of autonumabenchmark on a 328GB 64 core with ht disabled
> comparing
* Andrea Arcangeli [2012-10-04 01:50:42]:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a new AutoNUMA27 release for Linux v3.6.
>
Here results of autonumabenchmark on a 328GB 64 core with ht disabled
comparing v3.6 with autonuma27.
$ numactl -H
available: 8 nodes (0-7)
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
node 0
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:35:03PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:56:11PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Hi Mel,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:19:30AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > As a basic sniff test I added a test to MMtests for the AutoNUMA
> > > Benchmark on
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 03:45:53AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > So after getting through the full review of it, there wasn't anything
> > I could not stand. I think it's *very* heavy on some of the paths like
> > the i
Hi Mel,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> So after getting through the full review of it, there wasn't anything
> I could not stand. I think it's *very* heavy on some of the paths like
> the idle balancer which I was not keen on and the fault paths are also
> quite heav
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:35:03PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If System CPU time really does go down as this converges then that
> should be obvious from monitoring vmstat over time for a test. Early on
> - high usage with that dropping as it converges. If that doesn't happen
> then the tasks are
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:56:11PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:19:30AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > As a basic sniff test I added a test to MMtests for the AutoNUMA
> > Benchmark on a 4-node machine and the following fell out.
> >
> >
Hi Mel,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:19:30AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> As a basic sniff test I added a test to MMtests for the AutoNUMA
> Benchmark on a 4-node machine and the following fell out.
>
> 3.6.0 3.6.0
>
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:14:44 -0700
Andi Kleen wrote:
> IMHO needs a performance shot-out. Run both on the same 10 workloads
> and see who wins. Just a lot of of work. Any volunteers?
Here are some preliminary results from simple benchmarks on a
4-node, 32 CPU core (4x8 core) Dell PowerEdge R910
On 10/05/2012 05:11 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Tim Chen writes:
>>>
>>
>> I remembered that 3 months ago when Alex tested the numa/sched patches
>> there were 20% regression on SpecJbb2005 due to the numa balancer.
>
> 20% on anything sounds like a show stopper to me.
>
> -Andi
>
Much worse than
Tim Chen writes:
>>
>
> I remembered that 3 months ago when Alex tested the numa/sched patches
> there were 20% regression on SpecJbb2005 due to the numa balancer.
20% on anything sounds like a show stopper to me.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubscribe fro
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 16:14 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:50:42 +0200
> > Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >> This is a new AutoNUMA27 release for Linux v3.6.
> >
> > Peter's numa/sched patches have been in -next for a week.
>
> Did they pass review
Andrew Morton writes:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:50:42 +0200
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
>> This is a new AutoNUMA27 release for Linux v3.6.
>
> Peter's numa/sched patches have been in -next for a week.
Did they pass review? I have some doubts.
The last time I looked it also broke numactl.
> G
15 matches
Mail list logo
