* 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
* Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com [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
>
> 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
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
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
>
* 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
* Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com [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
Hi Srikar,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 12:10:19AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com [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
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
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 idle
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 a 4-node
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
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
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
>
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 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.
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
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 heavy.
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
On 10/05/2012 05:11 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Tim Chen tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com 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
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:14:44 -0700
Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org 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)
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
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
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.
>
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org writes:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:50:42 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com 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
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 16:14 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org writes:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:50:42 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
This is a new AutoNUMA27 release for Linux v3.6.
Peter's numa/sched patches have been in -next for a
Tim Chen tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com 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
30 matches
Mail list logo
