quoted

Got a chance to run autonuma-benchmark on a 8 node, 64 core machine. 
the results are as below. (for each kernel I ran 5 iterations of
autonuma-benchmark)

Thanks, a test of v10 would also be appreciated. The differences between
V7 and V10 are small but do include a change in how migrate rate-limiting
is handled. It is unlikely it'll make a difference to this test but I'd
like to rule it out.

Yes, have queued it for testing. Will report on completion.

quoted

KernelVersion: 3.7.0-rc3-mainline_v37rc7()

Please read it as 3.7-rc3 

What kernel is this? The name begins with 3.7-rc3 but then says
v37rc7. v37rc7 of what? I thought it might be v3.7-rc7 but it already said
it's 3.7-rc3 so I'm confused. Would it be possible to base the tests on
a similar baseline kernel such as 3.7.0-rc7 or 3.7.0-rc8? The

balancenuma patches should apply and the autonuma patches can be taken
from the mm-autonuma-v28fastr4-mels-rebase branch in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma.git

Yes, for the next set of reports I have based autonuma branch on this
branch.

Either way, the figures look bad. I'm trying to find a similar machine
but initially at least I have not had much luck. Can you post the .config
you used for balancenuma in case I can reproduce the problem on a 4-node
machine please? Are all the nodes the same size?

No all nodes are not of same size
There are 6 32 GB nodes and 2 64 GB nodes.

Will post the balancenuma config along with results.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar

--
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>