From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751433Ab2KLJuQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:50:16 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53350 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750852Ab2KLJuO (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:50:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:50:08 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Alex Shi Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Alex Shi , "Chen, Tim C" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches Message-ID: <20121112095008.GR8218@suse.de> References: <20121025121617.617683848@chello.nl> <20121030122032.GC3888@suse.de> <20121103122157.GH8218@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:47:41AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:04:04PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> > > >> > In reality, this report is larger but I chopped it down a bit for > >> > brevity. autonuma beats schednuma *heavily* on this benchmark both in > >> > terms of average operations per numa node and overall throughput. > >> > > >> > SPECJBB PEAKS > >> > 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 > >> > rc2-stats-v2r1 rc2-autonuma-v27r8 rc2-schednuma-v1r3 > >> > Expctd Warehouse 12.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 0.00%) > >> > Expctd Peak Bops 442225.00 ( 0.00%) 596039.00 ( 34.78%) 555342.00 ( 25.58%) > >> > Actual Warehouse 7.00 ( 0.00%) 9.00 ( 28.57%) 8.00 ( 14.29%) > >> > Actual Peak Bops 550747.00 ( 0.00%) 646124.00 ( 17.32%) 560635.00 ( 1.80%) > >> > >> It is impressive report! > >> > >> Could you like to share the what JVM and options are you using in the > >> testing, and based on which kinds of platform? > >> > > > > Oracle JVM version "1.7.0_07" > > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_07-b10) > > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.3-b01, mixed mode) > > > > 4 JVMs were run, one for each node. > > > > JVM switch specified was -Xmx12901m so it would consume roughly 80% of > > memory overall. > > > > Machine is x86-64 4-node, 64G of RAM, CPUs are E7-4807, 48 cores in > > total with HT enabled. > > > > Thanks for configuration sharing! > > I used Jrockit and openjdk with Hugepage plus pin JVM to cpu socket. If you are using hugepages then automatic numa is not migrating those pages. If you are pinning the JVMs to the socket then automatic numa balancing is unnecessary as they are already on the correct node. > In previous sched numa version, I had found 20% dropping with Jrockit > with our configuration. but for this version. No clear regression > found. also has no benefit found. > You are only checking for regressions with your configuration which is important because it showed that schednuma introduced only overhead in an optimisation NUMA configuration. In your case, you will see little or not benefit with any automatic NUMA balancing implementation as the most important pages neiter can migrate nor need to. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx163.postini.com [74.125.245.163]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8896C6B004D for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:50:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:50:08 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] numa/core patches Message-ID: <20121112095008.GR8218@suse.de> References: <20121025121617.617683848@chello.nl> <20121030122032.GC3888@suse.de> <20121103122157.GH8218@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Alex Shi Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Alex Shi , "Chen, Tim C" On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:47:41AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:04:04PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> > > >> > In reality, this report is larger but I chopped it down a bit for > >> > brevity. autonuma beats schednuma *heavily* on this benchmark both in > >> > terms of average operations per numa node and overall throughput. > >> > > >> > SPECJBB PEAKS > >> > 3.7.0 3.7.0 3.7.0 > >> > rc2-stats-v2r1 rc2-autonuma-v27r8 rc2-schednuma-v1r3 > >> > Expctd Warehouse 12.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 0.00%) > >> > Expctd Peak Bops 442225.00 ( 0.00%) 596039.00 ( 34.78%) 555342.00 ( 25.58%) > >> > Actual Warehouse 7.00 ( 0.00%) 9.00 ( 28.57%) 8.00 ( 14.29%) > >> > Actual Peak Bops 550747.00 ( 0.00%) 646124.00 ( 17.32%) 560635.00 ( 1.80%) > >> > >> It is impressive report! > >> > >> Could you like to share the what JVM and options are you using in the > >> testing, and based on which kinds of platform? > >> > > > > Oracle JVM version "1.7.0_07" > > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_07-b10) > > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.3-b01, mixed mode) > > > > 4 JVMs were run, one for each node. > > > > JVM switch specified was -Xmx12901m so it would consume roughly 80% of > > memory overall. > > > > Machine is x86-64 4-node, 64G of RAM, CPUs are E7-4807, 48 cores in > > total with HT enabled. > > > > Thanks for configuration sharing! > > I used Jrockit and openjdk with Hugepage plus pin JVM to cpu socket. If you are using hugepages then automatic numa is not migrating those pages. If you are pinning the JVMs to the socket then automatic numa balancing is unnecessary as they are already on the correct node. > In previous sched numa version, I had found 20% dropping with Jrockit > with our configuration. but for this version. No clear regression > found. also has no benefit found. > You are only checking for regressions with your configuration which is important because it showed that schednuma introduced only overhead in an optimisation NUMA configuration. In your case, you will see little or not benefit with any automatic NUMA balancing implementation as the most important pages neiter can migrate nor need to. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org