From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753491Ab3A1HdQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 02:33:16 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:54429 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752628Ab3A1HdO (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 02:33:14 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/arWtK98ba1UuCC6frRdy+A1TUBPQn+SjxltYT31 LbLZCCg2dctq4I Message-ID: <1359358384.5783.78.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling From: Mike Galbraith To: Alex Shi Cc: Borislav Petkov , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:33:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <510625FA.1060409@intel.com> References: <1358996820-23036-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130124094439.GB13463@pd.tnic> <51014E34.60309@intel.com> <510493E4.8060602@intel.com> <20130127104039.GC8894@pd.tnic> <51060A6D.4090208@intel.com> <1359355782.5783.59.camel@marge.simpson.net> <510625FA.1060409@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 15:17 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 01/28/2013 02:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:19 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >>>> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, > >>>> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads > >>>> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear > >>>> performance change found. > >>> > >>> Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is > >>> there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions > >>> with the bunch of benchmarks. > >>> > >>>> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, > >>>> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever > >>>> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving > >>>> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change. > >>> > >>> I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit > >>> when saving power... > >>> > >> > >> BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master. > >> The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy. > >> The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical. > > > > That makes sense. How the numa scheduling numbers compare to mainline? > > Do you have all three available, mainline, and tip w. w/o powersaving > > policy? > > > > I once caught 20~40% performance increasing on sched numa VS mainline > 3.7-rc5. but have no baseline to compare balance/powersaving performance > since lower data are acceptable for balance/powersaving and > tip/master changes too quickly to follow up at that time. > :) (wow. dram sucks, dram+smp sucks more, dram+smp+numa _sucks rocks_;)