On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Dave Chinner <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> My recollection wasn't faulty - I pulled it from an earlier email.
> That said, the original measurement might have been faulty. I ran
> the numbers again on the 3.19 kernel I saved away from the original
> testing. That came up at 235k, which is pretty much the same as
> yesterday's test. The runtime,however, is unchanged from my original
> measurements of 4m54s (pte_hack came in at 5m20s).
Ok. Good. So the "more than an order of magnitude difference" was
really about measurement differences, not quite as real. Looks like
more a "factor of two" than a factor of 20.
Did you do the profiles the same way? Because that would explain the
differences in the TLB flush percentages too (the "1.4% from
tlb_invalidate_range()" vs "pretty much everything from migration").
The runtime variation does show that there's some *big* subtle
difference for the numa balancing in the exact TNF_NO_GROUP details.
It must be *very* unstable for it to make that big of a difference.
But I feel at least a *bit* better about "unstable algorithm changes a
small varioation into a factor-of-two" vs that crazy factor-of-20.
Can you try Mel's change to make it use
if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))
instead of the pte details? Again, on otherwise plain 3.19, just so
that we have a baseline. I'd be *so* much happer with checking the vma
details over per-pte details, especially ones that change over the
lifetime of the pte entry, and the NUMA code explicitly mucks with.
Linus
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
