From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"tkhai@yandex.ru" <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: Real-time scheduling policies and hyper-threading
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:16:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140425151620.GK11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34791398438136@webcorp2g.yandex-team.ru>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:02:16PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Of course, there is always a trade-off between latency and performance utilization,
> but the common practice here is to keep cpu load between 40% and 70%. So, there is
> fast always a free CPU thread, and a good chance that there is a free core.
> In this case, both latency and average performance depends on how effectively
> all physical cores are utilized.
>
> Below is the comparison of average response times (in microseconds) under CFS and RT
> scheduler with my patches depending on the number of simultaneous requests.
> It's a 32-thread processor with 16 physical cores.
>
> nr_req CFS RT* diff
> 1 9664 9237 +4.41%
> 2 9179 9107 +0.79%
> 3 9179 9310 -1.43%
> 4 9325 9245 +0.86%
> 5 9562 9387 +1.83%
> 6 9523 9478 +0.47%
> 7 10105 9727 +3.74%
> 8 9900 9781 +1.21%
> 9 10077 9871 +2.04%
> 10 10270 9963 +2.99%
> 11 10604 10231 +3.52%
> 12 10760 10299 +4.29%
> 13 11022 10316 +6.40%
> 14 11595 10310 +11.08%
> 15 11489 10200 +11.22%
> 16 12059 10404 +13.72%
> 17 12056 10691 +11.32%
> 18 12208 11027 +9.67%
> 19 12412 11337 +8.66%
> 20 12634 11663 +7.69%
> 21 12843 12165 +5.28%
> 22 13181 12273 +6.89%
> 23 13214 12560 +4.95%
> 24 13465 12822 +4.78%
> 25 13469 13106 +2.70%
> 26 13725 13329 +2.88%
> 27 13943 13581 +2.60%
> 28 14007 13845 +1.16%
> 29 14242 14040 +1.41%
> 30 14386 14265 +0.84%
> 31 14909 14478 +2.90%
> 32 14772 14769 +0.02%
>
> Probably, it's possible to tune CFS for this case, but I have no idea how.
Well, like with everything, trace the heck out of it, see where it makes
the 'wrong' decision, then try and cure it.
The 'problem' seems to be in the 13-20 requests range.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-25 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-24 18:16 Roman Gushchin
2014-04-24 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-24 20:16 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-04-24 20:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-25 11:12 ` Roman Gushchin
2014-04-25 11:04 ` Roman Gushchin
2014-04-25 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-25 15:02 ` Roman Gushchin
2014-04-25 15:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-25 16:19 ` Roman Gushchin
2014-04-25 15:16 ` Peter Zijlstra [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=20140425151620.GK11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=klamm@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tkhai@yandex.ru \
/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®