[PATCH 0/6] pseudo-interleaving for automatic NUMA balancing

From: riel
Date: Fri Jan 17 2014 - 01:28:27 EST

The current automatic NUMA balancing code base has issues with
workloads that do not fit on one NUMA load. Page migration is
slowed down, but memory distribution between the nodes where
the workload runs is essentially random, often resulting in a
suboptimal amount of memory bandwidth being available to the

In order to maximize performance of workloads that do not fit in one NUMA
node, we want to satisfy the following criteria:
1) keep private memory local to each thread
2) avoid excessive NUMA migration of pages
3) distribute shared memory across the active nodes, to
maximize memory bandwidth available to the workload

This patch series identifies the NUMA nodes on which the workload
is actively running, and balances (somewhat lazily) the memory
between those nodes, satisfying the criteria above.

As usual, the series has had some performance testing, but it
could always benefit from more testing, on other systems.

Some performance numbers, with two 40-warehouse specjbb instances
on an 8 node system with 10 CPU cores per node, using a pre-cleanup
version of these patches, courtesy of Chegu Vinod:

numactl manual pinning
spec1.txt: throughput = 755900.20 SPECjbb2005 bops
spec2.txt: throughput = 754914.40 SPECjbb2005 bops

NO-pinning results (Automatic NUMA balancing, with patches)
spec1.txt: throughput = 706439.84 SPECjbb2005 bops
spec2.txt: throughput = 729347.75 SPECjbb2005 bops

NO-pinning results (Automatic NUMA balancing, without patches)
spec1.txt: throughput = 667988.47 SPECjbb2005 bops
spec2.txt: throughput = 638220.45 SPECjbb2005 bops

No Automatic NUMA and NO-pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 544120.97 SPECjbb2005 bops
spec2.txt: throughput = 453553.41 SPECjbb2005 bops

My own performance numbers are not as relevant, since I have been
running with a more hostile workload on purpose, and I have run
into a scheduler issue that caused the workload to run on only
two of the four NUMA nodes on my test system...

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/