* Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

This is an entirely valid line of inquiry IMO.

Btw., what I did was to simply look at David's profile on the 
regressing system and I compared it to the profile I got on a 
pretty similar (but unfortunately not identical and not 
regressing) system. I saw 3 differences:

 - the numa emulation faults
 - the higher TLB miss cost
 - numa/core's failure to handle 4K pages properly

And addressed those, in the hope of one of them making a
difference.

There's a fourth line of inquiry I'm pursuing as well: the node 
assymetry that David and Paul mentioned could have a performance 
effect as well - resulting from non-ideal placement under 
numa/core.

That is not easy to cure - I have written a patch to take the 
node assymetry into consideration, I'm still testing it with 
David's topology simulated on a testbox:

   numa=fake=4:10,20,20,30,20,10,20,20,20,20,10,20,30,20,20,10

Will send the patch out later.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
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>