Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted

[Mel Gorman]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 07:54:13PM -0600, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 18:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > ( The 4x JVM regression is still an open bug I think - I'll
> > >   re-check and fix that one next, no need to re-report it,
> > >   I'm on it. )
> > 
> > So I tested this on !THP too and the combined numbers are now:
> > 
> >                                           |
> >   [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ]                   |
> >   [ tx/sec            ]  v3.7             |  numa/core-v16
> >   [ higher is better  ] -----             |  -------------
> >                                           |
> >               +THP:      639k             |       655k            +2.5%
> >               -THP:      510k             |       517k            +1.3%
> > 
> > So it's not a regression anymore, regardless of whether THP is 
> > enabled or disabled.
> > 
> > The current updated table of performance results is:
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >   [ seconds         ]    v3.7  AutoNUMA   |  numa/core-v16    [ vs. v3.7]
> >   [ lower is better ]   -----  --------   |  -------------    -----------
> >                                           |
> >   numa01                340.3    192.3    |      139.4          +144.1%
> >   numa01_THREAD_ALLOC   425.1    135.1    |	 121.1          +251.0%
> >   numa02                 56.1     25.3    |       17.5          +220.5%
> >                                           |
> >   [ SPECjbb transactions/sec ]            |
> >   [ higher is better         ]            |
> >                                           |
> >   SPECjbb 1x32 +THP      524k     507k    |	  638k           +21.7%
> >   SPECjbb 1x32 !THP      395k             |       512k           +29.6%
> >                                           |
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                                           |
> >   [ SPECjbb multi-4x8 ]                   |
> >   [ tx/sec            ]  v3.7             |  numa/core-v16
> >   [ higher is better  ] -----             |  -------------
> >                                           |
> >               +THP:      639k             |       655k            +2.5%
> >               -THP:      510k             |       517k            +1.3%
> > 
> > So I think I've addressed all regressions reported so far - if 
> > anyone can still see something odd, please let me know so I can 
> > reproduce and fix it ASAP.
> 
> I can confirm single JVM JBB is working well for me.  I see a 30%
> improvement over autoNUMA.  What I can't make sense of is some perf
> stats (taken at 80 warehouses on 4 x WST-EX, 512GB memory):
> 

I'm curious about possible effects with profiling. Can you rerun just
this test without any profiling and see if the gain is the same? My own
tests are running monitors but they only fire every 10 seconds and are
not running profiles.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/