Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:23:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:23:42 -0400 Received: from ophelia.ess.nec.de ([193.141.139.8]:9943 "EHLO ophelia.ess.nec.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 07:23:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Erich Focht To: "Martin J. Bligh" , Michael Hohnbaum Subject: NUMA schedulers tests Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:17:35 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 Cc: Andrew Theurer , "Luck, Tony" , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200210131317.35544.efocht@ess.nec.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4524 Lines: 111 Hi, here is a set of measurements for three benchmarks and five schedulers. They were performed on an NEC Azusa, 16 CPU Itanium machine with NUMA architecture, 4 CPUs per node, 4 nodes with 8GB memory each. The benchmarks are: - hackbench: a variant of the wellknown chatroom benchmark - numa_test: runs a certain number of memory bandwidth hungry and latency dependent processes in parallel - kernbench: parallel kernel compile (5 times, make -j24, compile an ia64 2.4.18 kernel with gcc 2.96. As gcc's speed is VERY dependent on the number of registers of the target architecture, the results are not comparable to i386 compiles.) Schedulers tested (all on top of discontigmem for ia64): A: vanilla O(1) scheduler from 2.5.39 B: Michael Hohnbaums simple NUMA scheduler (latest published rev 2) C: pooling NUMA scheduler with initial load balancing (patches 01+02 from the 5 patches sent out) D: node affine NUMA scheduler (patches 01+02+03) E: node affine NUMA scheduler with dynamic homenode (patches 01+02+03+05) All results are averages over several measurements, the numbers in braces are the standard deviation or "error bars". There's a lot to say about the results, e.g that E is the best because it has most features. But the only comment I really want to make on this now is: the numa_test is not good enough for testing node affinity as "hackbench 20" doesn't seem to disturb the initialy balance too much. I'll improve this to make it more realistic. Otherwise it's good enough to see the advantage of not moving around tasks across the nodes. Best regards, Erich Hackbench: (averages over 4 tests, execution time) ------------------------------------------------------------------- N: 10 25 50 100 A 5.54(0.10) 15.28(0.03) 32.65(0.35) 67.67(0.69) B 5.37(0.06) 15.13(0.44) 31.96(0.49) 67.14(0.43) C 1.31(0.08) 2.91(0.12) 5.95(0.13) 13.37(0.11) D 2.45(0.44) 8.89(1.47) 21.98(1.08) 30.57(17.10) E 1.39(0.08) 2.92(0.09) 6.20(0.34) 14.30(0.28) numa_test: N=4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elapsed AvgUserTime TotUserTime TotSysTime Runs A 42.95(3.23) 30.40(1.16) 121.65(4.62) 10 B 35.08(2.24) 28.51(0.77) 114.10(3.07) 0.19(0.03) 20 C 27.44(0.06) 27.14(0.04) 108.62(0.15) 0.16(0.01) 20 D 27.42(0.08) 27.10(0.04) 108.48(0.14) 0.15(0.01) 20 E 27.50(0.23) 27.10(0.03) 108.48(0.13) 0.15(0.01) 20 numa_test: N=8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elapsed AvgUserTime TotUserTime TotSysTime Runs A 42.75(2.31) 31.34(0.93) 250.82(7.46) 10 B 34.82(2.74) 29.76(0.67) 238.19(5.34) 0.44(0.04) 20 C 29.29(0.47) 28.80(0.14) 230.55(1.13) 0.35(0.02) 20 D 29.23(0.40) 28.76(0.12) 230.20(0.92) 0.34(0.02) 20 E 29.08(0.06) 28.76(0.03) 230.22(0.27) 0.34(0.01) 20 numa_test: N=16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elapsed AvgUserTime TotUserTime TotSysTime Runs A 47.02(0.88) 33.80(0.90) 541.15(14.47) 10 B 41.82(8.26) 32.04(0.47) 512.91(7.57) 1.08(0.05) 20 C 41.30(5.50) 31.80(0.18) 509.11(2.84) 1.00(0.05) 20 D 39.89(6.42) 31.80(0.10) 509.13(1.67) 0.95(0.03) 20 E 41.61(5.42) 31.76(0.27) 508.44(4.32) 0.96(0.04) 20 numa_test: N=32 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elapsed AvgUserTime TotUserTime TotSysTime Runs A 83.52(2.25) 37.44(1.16) 1198.57(37.18) 10 B 80.33(4.35) 33.86(0.60) 1083.94(19.07) 2.13(0.06) 10 C 77.84(4.10) 33.58(0.36) 1074.82(11.47) 4 D 73.59(6.31) 33.20(0.11) 1062.88(3.38) 4 E 69.86(0.41) 33.26(0.06) 1064.72(1.88) 2.01(0.03) 10 numa_test: N=64 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elapsed AvgUserTime TotUserTime TotSysTime Runs A 164.15(3.40) 38.73(0.77) 2479.61(49.41) 10 B 149.63(2.89) 34.61(0.40) 2215.80(25.42) 4.28(0.06) 10 C 147.22(1.82) 34.41(0.13) 2202.88(8.39) 4 D 139.32(5.26) 33.37(0.05) 2136.66(3.59) 4 E 137.10(2.15) 33.40(0.02) 2138.13(1.37) 4.08(0.05) 10 Kernbench: (averages over 5 compiles) ----------------------------------------------- Elapsed UserTime SysTime A 93.78(0.43) 1321.05(1.20) 49.31(0.14) B 93.47(1.57) 1303.11(0.53) 52.27(0.46) C 92.67(1.08) 1304.09(0.74) 52.79(0.32) D 93.19(1.45) 1300.30(0.89) 52.46(0.20) E 93.63(1.00) 1299.44(0.67) 52.81(0.19) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/