mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
	qais.yousef@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
	tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Jiang Biao <benbjiang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7] sched/fair: select idle cpu from idle cpumask for task wakeup
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:53:14 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0c81e6f1-b017-89fb-35a8-65c9b3f96a1c@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201210113441.GS3371@techsingularity.net>

On 2020/12/10 19:34, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:23:47PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>> I ran this patch with tbench on top of of the schedstat patches that
>>> track SIS efficiency. The tracking adds overhead so it's not a perfect
>>> performance comparison but the expectation would be that the patch reduces
>>> the number of runqueues that are scanned
>>
>> Thanks for the measurement! I don't play with tbench so may need a while
>> to digest the data.
>>
> 
> They key point is that it appears the idle mask was mostly equivalent to
> the full domain mask, at least for this test.
> 
>>>
>>> tbench4
>>>                           5.10.0-rc6             5.10.0-rc6
>>>                       schedstat-v1r1          idlemask-v7r1
>>> Hmean     1        504.76 (   0.00%)      500.14 *  -0.91%*
>>> Hmean     2       1001.22 (   0.00%)      970.37 *  -3.08%*
>>> Hmean     4       1930.56 (   0.00%)     1880.96 *  -2.57%*
>>> Hmean     8       3688.05 (   0.00%)     3537.72 *  -4.08%*
>>> Hmean     16      6352.71 (   0.00%)     6439.53 *   1.37%*
>>> Hmean     32     10066.37 (   0.00%)    10124.65 *   0.58%*


>>> Hmean     64     12846.32 (   0.00%)    11627.27 *  -9.49%*

I focused on this case and run it 5 times, and here is the data on my side.
5 times x 600s tbench, thread number is 153(80% x 192(h/w thread num)).

Hmean 153		v5.9.12			v5.9.12
			schedstat-v1		idlemask-v8(with schedstat)
Round 1			15717.3			15608.1
Round 2			14856.9			15642.5
Round 3			14856.7			15782.1
Round 4			15408.9			15912.9
Round 5			15436.6			15927.7

From tbench throughput data, bigger is better, it looks like idlemask wins

And here is SIS_scanned data:

Hmean 153		v5.9.12			v5.9.12
			schedstat-v1		idlemask-v8(with schedstat)
Round 1			22562490432		21894932302
Round 2			21288529957		21693722629
Round 3			20657521771		21268308377
Round 4			21868486414		22289128955
Round 5			21859614988		22214740417

From SIS_scanned data, less is better, it looks like the default one is better.

But combined with throughput data, this can be explained as bigger throughput
performs more SIS_scanned.

So at least, there is no regression of this case.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

      parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-14  7:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-09  6:24 Aubrey Li
2020-12-09  8:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-09 10:58   ` Li, Aubrey
2020-12-09 13:09     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-09 14:53       ` Li, Aubrey
2020-12-09 14:36 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-10  8:23   ` Li, Aubrey
2020-12-10 11:34     ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-10 12:21       ` Li, Aubrey
2020-12-10 12:58         ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-11 17:44           ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-11 20:43             ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-11 22:19               ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-11 22:50                 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-14  8:11                   ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-14  9:31                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-14 12:36                       ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-14 15:01                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-14  9:32                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-14  9:18             ` Vincent Guittot
2020-12-14 12:42               ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-14  7:53       ` Li, Aubrey [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0c81e6f1-b017-89fb-35a8-65c9b3f96a1c@linux.intel.com \
    --to=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=benbjiang@gmail.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®