On 10/30/2012 08:20 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:16:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

Hi all,

Here's a re-post of the NUMA scheduling and migration improvement
patches that we are working on. These include techniques from
AutoNUMA and the sched/numa tree and form a unified basis - it
has got all the bits that look good and mergeable.

Thanks for the repost. I have not even started a review yet as I was
travelling and just online today. It will be another day or two before I can
start but I was at least able to do a comparison test between autonuma and
schednuma today to see which actually performs the best. Even without the
review I was able to stick on similar vmstats as was applied to autonuma
to give a rough estimate of the relative overhead of both implementations.

Peter, Ingo,

do you have any comments on the performance measurements
by Mel?

Any ideas on how to fix sched/numa or numa/core?

At this point, I suspect the easiest way forward might be
to merge the basic infrastructure from Mel's combined
tree (in -mm? in -tip?), so we can experiment with different
NUMA placement policies on top.

That way we can do apples to apples comparison of the
policies, and figure out what works best, and why.


--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>