* Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one
> > > > shortly in the "Latest numa/core release, v16" thread along with the
> > > > latest
> > > > schednuma figures I have available.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Report is linked here https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/202
> > >
> > > I ended up cancelling the remaining tests and restarted with
> > >
> > > 1. schednuma + patches posted since so that works out as
> >
> > Mel, I'd like to ask you to refer to our tree as numa/core or
> > 'numacore' in the future. Would such a courtesy to use the
> > current name of our tree be possible?
> >
>
> Sure, no problem.
Thanks!
I ran a quick test with your 'balancenuma v4' tree and while
numa02 and numa01-THREAD-ALLOC performance is looking good,
numa01 performance does not look very good:
mainline numa/core balancenuma-v4
numa01: 340.3 139.4 276 secs
97% slower than numa/core.
I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well:
numa/core balancenuma-v4
SPECjbb +THP: 655 k/sec 607 k/sec
Here it's 7.9% slower.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
