Re: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches

[Rik van Riel]

On 10/30/2012 08:20 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here's a re-post of the NUMA scheduling and migration improvement
> > patches that we are working on. These include techniques from
> > AutoNUMA and the sched/numa tree and form a unified basis - it
> > has got all the bits that look good and mergeable.
>
> Thanks for the repost. I have not even started a review yet as I was
> travelling and just online today. It will be another day or two before I can
> start but I was at least able to do a comparison test between autonuma and
> schednuma today to see which actually performs the best. Even without the
> review I was able to stick on similar vmstats as was applied to autonuma
> to give a rough estimate of the relative overhead of both implementations.

Peter, Ingo,

do you have any comments on the performance measurements
by Mel?

Any ideas on how to fix sched/numa or numa/core?

At this point, I suspect the easiest way forward might be
to merge the basic infrastructure from Mel's combined
tree (in -mm? in -tip?), so we can experiment with different
NUMA placement policies on top.

That way we can do apples to apples comparison of the
policies, and figure out what works best, and why.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/