From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753707Ab0DHFjW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 01:39:22 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:45449 "EHLO mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751022Ab0DHFjU (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 01:39:20 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=C3S9fzeKLyRMhX0CvlZvLhsGfNDeelBubEJNV6q1FHICvCf4cHW30l3ncrbtJQDg1v 57ydBIbOX4pshyG1MzZQbqjrKI4oKGjdLsRlnGywMp4lpkBZ4mWcb8Tk2dL7mvgPh1Qt Ve6ot7IkKjDfU9BgahZd8UkNKtmyo5yfxZLhM= Subject: Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e From: Eric Dumazet To: "Zhang, Yanmin" Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , netdev , Tejun Heo , alex.shi@intel.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Ma, Ling" , "Chen, Tim C" , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <1270702774.8141.49.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1269506457.4513.141.camel@alexs-hp.sh.intel.com> <1269570902.9614.92.camel@alexs-hp.sh.intel.com> <1270114166.2078.107.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> <1270195589.2078.116.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> <4BBA8DF9.8010409@kernel.org> <1270542497.2078.123.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> <1270591841.2091.170.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1270607668.2078.259.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> <4BBCB7B7.4040901@cs.helsinki.fi> <4BBCB868.2000705@cs.helsinki.fi> <1270665484.8141.47.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1270688747.2078.383.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> <1270702774.8141.49.camel@edumazet-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:39:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1270705153.8141.58.camel@edumazet-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I suspect NUMA is completely out of order on current kernel, or my Nehalem machine NUMA support is a joke # numactl --hardware available: 2 nodes (0-1) node 0 size: 3071 MB node 0 free: 2637 MB node 1 size: 3062 MB node 1 free: 2909 MB # cat try.sh hackbench 50 process 5000 numactl --cpubind=0 --membind=0 hackbench 25 process 5000 >RES0 & numactl --cpubind=1 --membind=1 hackbench 25 process 5000 >RES1 & wait echo node0 results cat RES0 echo node1 results cat RES1 numactl --cpubind=0 --membind=1 hackbench 25 process 5000 >RES0_1 & numactl --cpubind=1 --membind=0 hackbench 25 process 5000 >RES1_0 & wait echo node0 on mem1 results cat RES0_1 echo node1 on mem0 results cat RES1_0 # ./try.sh Running with 50*40 (== 2000) tasks. Time: 16.865 node0 results Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks. Time: 16.767 node1 results Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks. Time: 16.564 node0 on mem1 results Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks. Time: 16.814 node1 on mem0 results Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks. Time: 16.896