From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750870Ab2CUECI (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:02:08 -0400 Received: from gw.danplanet.com ([50.43.125.66]:41998 "EHLO mail.danplanet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750744Ab2CUECG (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:02:06 -0400 From: Dan Smith To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Suresh Siddha , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Lai Jiangshan , Bharata B Rao , Lee Schermerhorn , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha6 References: <20120316144028.036474157@chello.nl> <20120316182511.GJ24602@redhat.com> <87k42edenh.fsf@danplanet.com> <20120321021239.GQ24602@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:01:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20120321021239.GQ24602@redhat.com> (Andrea Arcangeli's message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:12:39 +0100") Message-ID: <87fwd2d2kp.fsf@danplanet.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org AA> upstream autonuma numasched hard inverse AA> numa02 64 45 66 42 81 AA> numa01 491 328 607 321 623 -D THREAD_ALLOC AA> numa01 305 207 338 196 378 -D NO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE AA> So give me a break... you must have made a real mess in your AA> benchmarking. I'm just running what you posted, dude :) AA> numasched is always doing worse than upstream here, in fact two AA> times massively worse. Almost as bad as the inverse binds. Well, something clearly isn't right, because my numbers don't match yours at all. This time with THP disabled, and compared to the rest of the numbers from my previous runs: autonuma HARD INVERSE NO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_MODE numa01 366 335 356 377 numa01THP 388 336 353 399 That shows that autonuma is worse than inverse binds here. If I'm running your stuff incorrectly, please tell me and I'll correct it. However, I've now compiled the binary exactly as you asked, with THP disabled, and am seeing surprisingly consistent results. AA> Maybe you've more than 16g? I've 16G and that leaves 1G free on both AA> nodes at the peak load with AutoNUMA. That shall be enough for AA> numasched too (Peter complained me I waste 80MB on a 16G system, so AA> he can't possibly be intentionally wasting me 2GB). Yep, 24G here. Do I need to tweak the test? AA> In any case your results were already _obviously_ broken without me AA> having to benchmark numasched to verify, because it's impossible AA> numasched could be 20% faster than autonuma on numa01, because AA> otherwise it would mean that numasched is like 18% faster than hard AA> bindings which is mathematically impossible unless your hardware is AA> not NUMA or superNUMAbroken. How do you figure? I didn't post any hard binding numbers. In fact, numasched performed about equal to hard binding...definitely within your stated 2% error interval. That was with THP enabled, tomorrow I'll be glad to run them all again without THP. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx178.postini.com [74.125.245.178]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D97166B007E for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:02:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [RFC] AutoNUMA alpha6 References: <20120316144028.036474157@chello.nl> <20120316182511.GJ24602@redhat.com> <87k42edenh.fsf@danplanet.com> <20120321021239.GQ24602@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 21:01:58 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20120321021239.GQ24602@redhat.com> (Andrea Arcangeli's message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2012 03:12:39 +0100") Message-ID: <87fwd2d2kp.fsf@danplanet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner , Suresh Siddha , Mike Galbraith , "Paul E. McKenney" , Lai Jiangshan , Bharata B Rao , Lee Schermerhorn , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org AA> upstream autonuma numasched hard inverse AA> numa02 64 45 66 42 81 AA> numa01 491 328 607 321 623 -D THREAD_ALLOC AA> numa01 305 207 338 196 378 -D NO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_NODE AA> So give me a break... you must have made a real mess in your AA> benchmarking. I'm just running what you posted, dude :) AA> numasched is always doing worse than upstream here, in fact two AA> times massively worse. Almost as bad as the inverse binds. Well, something clearly isn't right, because my numbers don't match yours at all. This time with THP disabled, and compared to the rest of the numbers from my previous runs: autonuma HARD INVERSE NO_BIND_FORCE_SAME_MODE numa01 366 335 356 377 numa01THP 388 336 353 399 That shows that autonuma is worse than inverse binds here. If I'm running your stuff incorrectly, please tell me and I'll correct it. However, I've now compiled the binary exactly as you asked, with THP disabled, and am seeing surprisingly consistent results. AA> Maybe you've more than 16g? I've 16G and that leaves 1G free on both AA> nodes at the peak load with AutoNUMA. That shall be enough for AA> numasched too (Peter complained me I waste 80MB on a 16G system, so AA> he can't possibly be intentionally wasting me 2GB). Yep, 24G here. Do I need to tweak the test? AA> In any case your results were already _obviously_ broken without me AA> having to benchmark numasched to verify, because it's impossible AA> numasched could be 20% faster than autonuma on numa01, because AA> otherwise it would mean that numasched is like 18% faster than hard AA> bindings which is mathematically impossible unless your hardware is AA> not NUMA or superNUMAbroken. How do you figure? I didn't post any hard binding numbers. In fact, numasched performed about equal to hard binding...definitely within your stated 2% error interval. That was with THP enabled, tomorrow I'll be glad to run them all again without THP. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org