On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:50:18PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:14:28PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > With some shuffling the question on what to consider for merging
> > becomes
> >
> >
> > 1. TLB optimisation patches 1-3?Patches 1-3
>
> I assu
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:14:28PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> With some shuffling the question on what to consider for merging
> becomes
>
>
> 1. TLB optimisation patches 1-3? Patches 1-3
I assume you mean simply reshuffling 33-35 as 1-3.
> 2. Stats for migration?
* Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:56:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > It is important to know how this was configured. I was running
> > > one JVM per node and the JVMs were sized that they should fit
> > > in the node. [...]
> >
> > That
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 04:56:26PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > It is important to know how this was configured. I was running
> > one JVM per node and the JVMs were sized that they should fit
> > in the node. [...]
>
> That is not what I tested: as I described it i
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [...]
>
> I would ask the involved people to please come up with a set
> of initial patches that people agree on, so that we can at
> least start merging some of the infrastructure, and see how
> far we can get on at least getting *started*.
That would definitely b
* Mel Gorman wrote:
> It is important to know how this was configured. I was running
> one JVM per node and the JVMs were sized that they should fit
> in the node. [...]
That is not what I tested: as I described it in the mail I
tested 32 warehouses: i.e. spanning the whole system.
You test
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:04:42PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 03:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >Ugh.
> >
> >According to these numbers, the latest sched-numa actually regresses
> >against mainline on Specjbb.
> >
> >No way is this even close to ready for merging in the 3.8 timefram
On 11/15/2012 03:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ugh.
According to these numbers, the latest sched-numa actually regresses
against mainline on Specjbb.
No way is this even close to ready for merging in the 3.8 timeframe.
I would ask the invilved people to please come up with a set of
initial patc
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:52:48PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 05:08 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 07:48:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>Here are some preliminary performance figures, comparing the
> >>vanilla kernel against the CONFIG_SCHED_NUMA=y kernel.
> >>
Ugh.
According to these numbers, the latest sched-numa actually regresses
against mainline on Specjbb.
No way is this even close to ready for merging in the 3.8 timeframe.
I would ask the invilved people to please come up with a set of
initial patches that people agree on, so that we can at leas
On 11/15/2012 05:08 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 07:48:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Here are some preliminary performance figures, comparing the
vanilla kernel against the CONFIG_SCHED_NUMA=y kernel.
Java SPEC benchmark, running on a 4 node, 64 GB, 32-way server
system (highe
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 07:48:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This series implements an improved version of NUMA scheduling,
> > based on the review and testing feedback we got.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > This new scheduler code is then able to group tas
12 matches
Mail list logo
