Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Nov 2012 23:36:04 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16 |
| |
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> Ok. > > In response to one of your later questions, I found that I had > in fact disabled THP without properly reporting it. [...]
Hugepages is a must for most forms of NUMA/HPC. This alone questions the relevance of most of your prior numa/core testing results. I now have to strongly dispute your other conclusions as well.
Just a look at 'perf top' output should have told you the story.
Yet time and time again you readily reported bad 'schednuma' results for a slow 4K memory model that neither we nor other NUMA testers I talked to actually used, without stopping to look why that was so...
[ I suspect that if such terabytes-of-data workloads are forced through such a slow 4K pages model then there's a bug or mis-tuning in our code that explains the level of additional slowdown you saw - we'll fix that.
But you should know that behavior under the slow 4K model tells very little about the true scheduling and placement quality of the patches... ]
Please report proper THP-enabled numbers before continuing.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |