Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 01 Aug 2014 23:30:34 +0200 | From | Jirka Hladky <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [sched/numa] a43455a1d57: +94.1% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local |
| |
On 08/01/2014 10:46 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 18:16 +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: >> Peter, I'm seeing regressions for >> >> SINGLE SPECjbb instance for number of warehouses being the same as total >> number of cores in the box. >> >> Example: 4 NUMA node box, each CPU has 6 cores => biggest regression is >> for 24 warehouses. > By looking at your graph, that's around a 10% difference. > > So I'm not seeing anywhere near as bad a regression on a 80-core box. > Testing single with 80 warehouses, I get: > > tip/master baseline: > 677476.36 bops > 705826.70 bops > 704870.87 bops > 681741.20 bops > 707014.59 bops > > Avg: 695385.94 bops > > tip/master + patch (NUMA_SCALE/8 variant): > 698242.66 bops > 693873.18 bops > 707852.28 bops > 691785.96 bops > 747206.03 bopsthis > > Avg: 707792.022 bops > > So both these are pretty similar, however, when reverting, on avg we > increase the amount of bops a mere ~4%: > > tip/master + reverted: > 778416.02 bops > 702602.62 bops > 712557.32 bops > 713982.90 bops > 783300.36 bops > > Avg: 738171.84 bops > > Are there perhaps any special specjbb options you are using? >
I see the regression only on this box. It has 4 "Ivy Bridge-EX" Xeon E7-4890 v2 CPUs.
http://ark.intel.com/products/75251 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Ivy_Bridge-EX.22_.2822_nm.29_Expandable_2
Please rerun the test on box with Ivy Bridge CPUs. It seems that older CPU generations are not affected.
Thanks Jirka
| |