From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752266Ab2KTILL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:11:11 -0500
Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:65329 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751649Ab2KTILJ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:11:09 -0500
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:11:06 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16
In-Reply-To: <20121120080110.GA14785@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1211200007360.16449@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1353291284-2998-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <20121119162909.GL8218@suse.de> <20121119191339.GA11701@gmail.com> <20121119211804.GM8218@suse.de> <20121119223604.GA13470@gmail.com> <CA+55aFzQYH4qW_Cw3aHPT0bxsiC_Q_ggy4YtfvapiMG7bR=FsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121120071704.GA14199@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1211192329090.14460@chino.kir.corp.google.com> <20121120080110.GA14785@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > I confirm that numa/core regresses significantly more without 
> > thp than the 6.3% regression I reported with thp in terms of 
> > throughput on the same system.  numa/core at 01aa90068b12 
> > ("sched: Use the best-buddy 'ideal cpu' in balancing 
> > decisions") had 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops whereas ec05a2311c35 
> > ("Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into sched/core") had 122246.90 
> > SPECjbb2005 bops, a 23.0% regression.
> 
> What is the base performance figure with THP disabled? Your 
> baseline was:
> 
>    sched/core at ec05a2311c35:    136918.34 SPECjbb2005 
> 
> Would be interesting to see how that kernel reacts to THP off.
> 

In summary, the benchmarks that I've collected thus far are:

THP enabled:

   numa/core at ec05a2311c35:	136918.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
   numa/core at 01aa90068b12:	128315.19 SPECjbb2005 bops (-6.3%)

THP disabled:

   numa/core at ec05a2311c35:	122246.90 SPECjbb2005 bops
   numa/core at 01aa90068b12:	 99389.49 SPECjbb2005 bops (-23.0%)