On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:22:37PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > The SPECjbb 4x JVM numbers are still very close to the > > hard-binding results: > > > > Fri Dec 7 02:08:42 CET 2012 > > spec1.txt: throughput = 188667.94 SPECjbb2005 bops > > spec2.txt: throughput = 190109.31 SPECjbb2005 bops > > spec3.txt: throughput = 191438.13 SPECjbb2005 bops > > spec4.txt: throughput = 192508.34 SPECjbb2005 bops > > -------------------------- > > SUM: throughput = 762723.72 SPECjbb2005 bops > > > > And the same is true for !THP as well. > > I could not resist to throw all relevant trees on my own 4node machine > and run a SPECjbb 4x JVM comparison. All results have been averaged > over 10 runs. > > mainline: v3.7-rc8 > autonuma: mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase > balancenuma: mm-balancenuma-v10r3 > numacore: Unified NUMA balancing tree, v3 > > The config is based on a F16 config with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y and the > relevant NUMA options enabled for the 4 trees. >
Ok, I had PREEMPT enabled so we differ on that at least. I don't know if it would be enough to hide the problems that led to the JVM crashing on me for the latest version of numacore or not. > THP off: manual placement result: 125239 > > Auto result Man/Auto Mainline/Auto Variance > mainline : 93945 0.750 1.000 5.91% > autonuma : 123651 0.987 1.316 5.15% > balancenuma : 97327 0.777 1.036 5.19% > numacore : 123009 0.982 1.309 5.73% > > > THP on: manual placement result: 143170 > > Auto result Auto/Manual Auto/Mainline Variance > mainline : 104462 0.730 1.000 8.47% > autonuma : 137363 0.959 1.315 5.81% > balancenuma : 112183 0.784 1.074 11.58% > numacore : 142728 0.997 1.366 2.94% > > So autonuma and numacore are basically on the same page, with a slight > advantage for numacore in the THP enabled case. balancenuma is closer > to mainline than to autonuma/numacore. > I would expect balancenuma to be closer to mainline than autonuma, whatever about numacore which I get mixed results for. balancenumas objective was not to be the best, it was meant to be a baseline that either autonuma or numacore could compete based on scheduler policies for while the MM portions would be common to either. If I thought otherwise I would have spent the last 2 weeks working on the scheduler aspects which would have been generally unhelpful. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/
