From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753052AbeFDMY1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:24:27 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:40174 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753006AbeFDMYT (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:24:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 14:24:08 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] sched/numa: Use task faults only if numa_group is not yet setup Message-ID: <20180604122408.GT12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1528106428-19992-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1528106428-19992-6-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1528106428-19992-6-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:30:14PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > When numa_group faults are available, task_numa_placement only uses > numa_group faults to evaluate preferred node. However it still accounts > task faults and even evaluates the preferred node just based on task > faults just to discard it in favour of preferred node chosen on the > basis of numa_group. > > Instead use task faults only if numa_group is not set. > > Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev > numa01.sh Real: 506.35 794.46 599.06 104.26 > numa01.sh Sys: 150.37 223.56 195.99 24.94 > numa01.sh User: 43450.69 61752.04 49281.50 6635.33 > numa02.sh Real: 60.33 62.40 61.31 0.90 > numa02.sh Sys: 18.12 31.66 24.28 5.89 > numa02.sh User: 5203.91 5325.32 5260.29 49.98 > numa03.sh Real: 696.47 853.62 745.80 57.28 > numa03.sh Sys: 85.68 123.71 97.89 13.48 > numa03.sh User: 55978.45 66418.63 59254.94 3737.97 > numa04.sh Real: 444.05 514.83 497.06 26.85 > numa04.sh Sys: 230.39 375.79 316.23 48.58 > numa04.sh User: 35403.12 41004.10 39720.80 2163.08 > numa05.sh Real: 423.09 460.41 439.57 13.92 > numa05.sh Sys: 287.38 480.15 369.37 68.52 > numa05.sh User: 34732.12 38016.80 36255.85 1070.51 > > Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change > numa01.sh Real: 478.45 565.90 515.11 30.87 16.29% > numa01.sh Sys: 207.79 271.04 232.94 21.33 -15.8% > numa01.sh User: 39763.93 47303.12 43210.73 2644.86 14.04% > numa02.sh Real: 60.00 61.46 60.78 0.49 0.871% > numa02.sh Sys: 15.71 25.31 20.69 3.42 17.35% > numa02.sh User: 5175.92 5265.86 5235.97 32.82 0.464% > numa03.sh Real: 776.42 834.85 806.01 23.22 -7.47% > numa03.sh Sys: 114.43 128.75 121.65 5.49 -19.5% > numa03.sh User: 60773.93 64855.25 62616.91 1576.39 -5.36% > numa04.sh Real: 456.93 511.95 482.91 20.88 2.930% > numa04.sh Sys: 178.09 460.89 356.86 94.58 -11.3% > numa04.sh User: 36312.09 42553.24 39623.21 2247.96 0.246% > numa05.sh Real: 393.98 493.48 436.61 35.59 0.677% > numa05.sh Sys: 164.49 329.15 265.87 61.78 38.92% > numa05.sh User: 33182.65 36654.53 35074.51 1187.71 3.368% > > Ideally this change shouldn't have affected performance. Ideally you go on here to explain why it does in fact do affect performance.. :-)