Re: [PATCH 00/19] sched-numa rewrite

[Andrea Arcangeli]

Hi everyone,

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:12:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After having had a talk with Rik about all this NUMA nonsense where he proposed
> the scheme implemented in the next to last patch, I came up with a related
> means of doing the home-node selection.
> 
> I've also switched to (ab)using PROT_NONE for driving the migration faults.

I'm glad we agree on the introduction of the numa hinting page faults.

I run a benchmark to compare your sched-numa rewrite with autonuma22:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/autonuma/autonuma-vs-sched-numa-rewrite-20120808.pdf

> These patches go on top of tip/master with origin/master (Linus' tree) merged in.

It applied clean (with git am) on top of 3.6-rc1
(0d7614f09c1ebdbaa1599a5aba7593f147bf96ee) which already had a pull of
sched-core from tip and other tip bits. If that's not ok let me know
which commit I should use, and I'll repeat.

I released autonuma22 yesterday to provide an exact commit
(f958aa119a8ec417571ea8bdb527182d8ebe8b68) in case somebody wants to
reproduce the numbers on 2 node systems.

The autonuma-benchmark used to run the benchmark was at commit
65d93e485f09e3c1005e8c55cb5b1f97bd3a9ed8 which matches tag 0.1:

git clone git://gitorious.org/autonuma-benchmark/autonuma-benchmark.git

I'll update the pdf shortly by adding 8 node results too.

Thanks,
Andrea
--
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/