Hi everyone, On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi all, > > After having had a talk with Rik about all this NUMA nonsense where he > proposed > the scheme implemented in the next to last patch, I came up with a related > means of doing the home-node selection. > > I've also switched to (ab)using PROT_NONE for driving the migration faults.
I'm glad we agree on the introduction of the numa hinting page faults. I run a benchmark to compare your sched-numa rewrite with autonuma22: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/autonuma/autonuma-vs-sched-numa-rewrite-20120808.pdf > These patches go on top of tip/master with origin/master (Linus' tree) merged > in. It applied clean (with git am) on top of 3.6-rc1 (0d7614f09c1ebdbaa1599a5aba7593f147bf96ee) which already had a pull of sched-core from tip and other tip bits. If that's not ok let me know which commit I should use, and I'll repeat. I released autonuma22 yesterday to provide an exact commit (f958aa119a8ec417571ea8bdb527182d8ebe8b68) in case somebody wants to reproduce the numbers on 2 node systems. The autonuma-benchmark used to run the benchmark was at commit 65d93e485f09e3c1005e8c55cb5b1f97bd3a9ed8 which matches tag 0.1: git clone git://gitorious.org/autonuma-benchmark/autonuma-benchmark.git I'll update the pdf shortly by adding 8 node results too. Thanks, Andrea -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
