From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 07:41:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1373002865.8318.11.camel@marge.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51D64C84.5080100@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Fri, 2013-07-05 at 12:33 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 07/05/2013 12:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> Wow, I used to think such issue is very hard to be tracked by
> >> benchmarks, is this regression stable?
> >
> > Yeah, seems to be. I was curious as to why you saw an improvement to
> > hackbench, didn't seem there should be any, so though I'd try it on my
> > little box on the way to a long weekend. The unexpected happened.
>
> Oh, I think I failed to explain things clearly in comments...
>
> It's not the patch who bring 15% benefit to hackbench, but the
> wake-affine stuff itself.
>
> In the prev-test, I removed the whole stuff and find that hackbench
> dropped 15%, which means with wake-affine enabled, we will gain 15%
> benefit (and that's actually the reason why we don't kill the stuff).
Ah.
> And this idea is try to not harm that 15% benefit, and meanwhile regain
> the pgbench lost performance, thus, apply this patch to mainline won't
> improve hackbench performance, but improve pgbench performance.
>
> But this regression is really unexpected... I could hardly believe it's
> just caused by cache issue now, since the number is not small (10% at
> most?).
>
> Have you tried to use more loops and groups? will that show even bigger
> regressions?
Nope, less on either side.
hackbench -g 100 -l 1000
avg
3.10.0-regress 21.895 21.564 21.777 21.958 22.093 21.857 1.000
3.10.0-regressx 22.844 23.268 23.056 23.231 22.375 22.954 1.050
hackbench -g 1 -l 100000
avg
3.10.0-regress 29.913 29.711 30.395 30.213 30.236 30.093 1.000
3.10.0-regressx 30.392 31.003 30.728 31.008 30.389 30.704 1.020
> BTW, is this the results of 10 group and 40 sockets == 400 tasks?
Yeah, stock.
Off to do some body/mind tuning. Bavarian mushrooms don't hide as well
as memory access thingies.. and I can still out run 'em.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-05 5:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-28 5:05 [RFC PATCH] " Michael Wang
2013-06-03 2:28 ` Michael Wang
2013-06-03 3:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-03 3:26 ` Michael Wang
2013-06-03 3:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-03 4:52 ` Michael Wang
2013-06-03 5:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-03 5:50 ` Michael Wang
2013-06-03 6:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-06-03 6:31 ` Michael Wang
2013-06-13 3:09 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-02 4:43 ` [PATCH] " Michael Wang
2013-07-02 5:38 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-02 5:50 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-02 5:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-02 6:17 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-02 6:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-02 6:45 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-02 8:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-02 9:35 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-02 9:44 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-04 9:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-04 9:38 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-04 10:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-05 2:47 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-05 4:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-05 4:33 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-05 5:41 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2013-07-05 6:16 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-07 6:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-08 2:49 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-08 3:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-08 8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-08 8:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-07-08 9:08 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-08 8:58 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-08 18:59 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-09 2:30 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-09 2:36 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-09 2:52 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-15 5:13 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-15 5:57 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-15 6:01 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-18 2:15 ` Michael Wang
2013-07-03 6:10 ` [PATCH v2] " Michael Wang
2013-07-03 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-03 9:11 ` Michael Wang
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=1373002865.8318.11.camel@marge.simpson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome