> this is the -E6 patch, with most of the HT-unrelated tunings and leftover
> changes (noticed by Robert) removed. I kept the activation reorganization
> because that is important in the HT case as well.
>
> based on Erich's observations i also added AGRESSIVE_IDLE_STEAL, which
> defaults to 1 currently - could anyone try it with 0 on a NUMA box, how
> much of a difference does it make?
Passive aggressive results below - 16x NUMA-Q:
Summary: passive seems OK, though no better than current (for me).
Aggressive seems a little worse than current, though not too drastically.
--------------------------------------
Kernbench-2: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59-gcc3.2 45.86 563.63 119.58 1489.33
2.5.59-E6-agressive 46.09 564.41 120.19 1484.67
2.5.59-E6-passive 46.20 564.53 120.00 1481.33
Kernbench-16: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus)
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59-gcc3.2 47.15 567.41 143.72 1507.50
2.5.59-E6-agressive 47.58 567.42 146.40 1499.50
2.5.59-E6-passive 47.51 567.56 144.57 1498.33
DISCLAIMER: SPEC(tm) and the benchmark name SDET(tm) are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This
benchmarking was performed for research purposes only, and the run results
are non-compliant and not-comparable with any published results.
Results are shown as percentages of the first set displayed
SDET 1 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 5.2%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 93.5% 5.4%
2.5.59-E6-passive 104.2% 1.6%
SDET 2 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 7.1%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 100.9% 4.0%
2.5.59-E6-passive 102.8% 9.9%
SDET 4 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 5.3%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 105.3% 8.1%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.8% 7.2%
SDET 8 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 4.7%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 99.7% 2.9%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.2% 4.3%
SDET 16 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.8%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 97.8% 0.3%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.4% 1.7%
SDET 32 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.6%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 100.3% 1.5%
2.5.59-E6-passive 99.6% 1.6%
SDET 64 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.1%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 99.8% 0.6%
2.5.59-E6-passive 99.4% 1.1%
NUMA schedbench 4:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 41.80 107.76 0.73
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 43.65 116.28 0.78
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 41.56 93.15 0.65
NUMA schedbench 8:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 38.00 229.83 2.11
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 60.41 298.63 1.91
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 41.76 250.80 1.80
NUMA schedbench 16:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 57.28 839.21 2.85
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 57.36 849.87 2.90
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 57.45 850.05 3.55
NUMA schedbench 32:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 118.44 1788.09 6.25
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 117.88 1796.30 6.13
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 116.91 1802.43 6.38
NUMA schedbench 64:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 234.55 3633.76 15.02
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 233.69 3614.37 14.53
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 236.53 3635.14 15.29
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:15 EST