On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:05:14AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > 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
* Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well:
> >
> > numa/core balancenuma-v4
> > SPECjbb +THP: 655 k/sec 607 k/sec
> >
>
> Cool. Lets see what we have here. I have some questions;
>
> You say you ran
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but w
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:27:15AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > > I did a quick SPECjbb 32-warehouses run as well:
> > >
> > > numa/core balancenuma-v4
> > > SPECjbb +THP: 655 k/sec 607 k/sec
> > >
> >
>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:21:58PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:33:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Mel Gorman
* Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:33:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, Mel Gorman w
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:33:16PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not inclu
* Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not including a benchmark report in this but will be posting one
> > > > shortly in the "L
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:03:06PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, 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 al
* Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, 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.
> >
>
> Repor
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:21:06AM +, 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/
tldr: Benchmarkers, only test patches 1-37. If there is instability,
it may be due to the native THP migration patch and test with
1-36. Please report any results or problems you find.
In terms of merging, I would also only consider patches 1-37.
git tree:
git://git.kernel.
12 matches
Mail list logo
