From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
<dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>, <vschneid@redhat.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <wangtao554@huawei.com>,
<quzicheng@huawei.com>, <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>,
<dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: Various reweight_entity() fixes
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 09:50:50 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <94172979-5ff9-4af6-b2b2-c41b00b8ba7d@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260130093439.803225718@infradead.org>
Hello Peter,
On 1/30/2026 3:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Two issues related to reweight_entity() were raised; poking at all that got me
> these patches.
>
> They're in queue.git/sched/core and I spend most of yesterday staring at traces
> trying to find anything wrong. So far, so good.
>
> Please test.
For queue:sched/core at commit bdba3187771c ("sched/fair: Use full
weight to __calc_delta()"), here are the results:
o tl;dr
No consistent regressions observed so far. Ones that have a large
%diff either have a small baseline (like < 10us latency for schbench)
or have a large CV (like for 16-groups of hackbench).
Feel free to include:
Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
o Full results
Baseline was commit cee73b1e840c ("Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-7.0-mw1'
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux"). Testing
was done on a 2 x 128C/256T 4th Generation EPYC system (Zen4c) with
boost enabled and C2 disabled.
==================================================================
Test : hackbench
Units : Normalized time in seconds
Interpretation: Lower is better
Statistic : AMean
==================================================================
Case: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1-groups 1.00 [ -0.00](11.97) 1.09 [ -8.80](15.94)
2-groups 1.00 [ -0.00](14.01) 1.07 [ -7.40]( 8.55)
4-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 8.54) 0.98 [ 1.60]( 6.49)
8-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.78) 1.03 [ -3.01]( 2.35)
16-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.64) 1.08 [ -7.55]( 7.69)
==================================================================
Test : tbench
Units : Normalized throughput
Interpretation: Higher is better
Statistic : AMean
==================================================================
Clients: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.20) 1.01 [ 1.04]( 0.06)
2 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.37) 1.01 [ 1.22]( 0.07)
4 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.37) 1.02 [ 1.53]( 0.35)
8 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.43) 1.01 [ 1.10]( 0.57)
16 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.11) 1.01 [ 0.83]( 0.25)
32 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.61) 1.01 [ 0.86]( 0.57)
64 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.19) 1.00 [ 0.21]( 1.48)
128 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.22) 0.99 [ -1.23]( 1.53)
256 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.22) 1.01 [ 0.58]( 0.42)
512 1.00 [ 0.00]( 2.23) 1.02 [ 1.83]( 3.35)
1024 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.58) 1.00 [ 0.10]( 0.45)
2048 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.46) 1.01 [ 0.51]( 0.07)
==================================================================
Test : stream-10
Units : Normalized Bandwidth, MB/s
Interpretation: Higher is better
Statistic : HMean
==================================================================
Test: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
Copy 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.94) 1.00 [ -0.31]( 1.61)
Scale 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.85) 1.00 [ -0.45]( 2.04)
Add 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.84) 0.99 [ -0.55]( 1.77)
Triad 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.78) 1.00 [ -0.46]( 1.63)
==================================================================
Test : stream-100
Units : Normalized Bandwidth, MB/s
Interpretation: Higher is better
Statistic : HMean
==================================================================
Test: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
Copy 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.16) 1.00 [ 0.34]( 0.45)
Scale 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.53) 1.01 [ 0.59]( 0.53)
Add 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.14) 1.01 [ 0.60]( 0.47)
Triad 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.14) 1.01 [ 0.52]( 0.34)
==================================================================
Test : netperf
Units : Normalized Througput
Interpretation: Higher is better
Statistic : AMean
==================================================================
Clients: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.14) 1.01 [ 0.96]( 0.10)
2-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.34) 1.01 [ 0.92]( 0.24)
4-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.13) 1.01 [ 0.71]( 0.94)
8-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.46) 1.01 [ 0.69]( 0.27)
16-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.62) 1.01 [ 0.74]( 0.91)
32-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.19) 1.01 [ 1.04]( 1.19)
64-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.81) 1.01 [ 0.62]( 1.64)
128-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.90) 1.00 [ 0.30]( 1.93)
256-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.76) 1.00 [ 0.27]( 1.75)
512-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 6.23) 0.99 [ -0.52]( 5.66)
768-clients 1.00 [ 0.00](33.00) 0.99 [ -0.91](34.32)
1024-clients 1.00 [ 0.00](38.21) 1.00 [ -0.18](32.98)
==================================================================
Test : schbench
Units : Normalized 99th percentile latency in us
Interpretation: Lower is better
Statistic : Median
==================================================================
#workers: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1 1.00 [ -0.00](15.02) 1.47 [-47.06](32.99)
2 1.00 [ -0.00](17.83) 0.97 [ 2.94]( 4.58)
4 1.00 [ -0.00](12.22) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.07)
8 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.38) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.38)
16 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.92) 1.08 [ -7.69]( 3.15)
32 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.37) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.78)
64 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.85) 1.01 [ -0.85]( 3.92)
128 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.21) 1.00 [ -0.48]( 1.47)
256 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.39) 1.00 [ -0.00](12.20)
512 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.20) 1.02 [ -2.07]( 2.04)
768 1.00 [ -0.00]( 5.68) 0.97 [ 3.11]( 7.62)
1024 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.23) 1.01 [ -0.77]( 4.71)
==================================================================
Test : new-schbench-requests-per-second
Units : Normalized Requests per second
Interpretation: Higher is better
Statistic : Median
==================================================================
#workers: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.00)
2 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.15) 1.00 [ -0.29]( 0.00)
4 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ -0.29]( 0.00)
8 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ -0.29]( 0.00)
16 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.15) 1.00 [ -0.29]( 0.15)
32 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.15) 0.99 [ -0.59]( 0.15)
64 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.15) 0.99 [ -0.59]( 0.00)
128 1.00 [ 0.00](13.29) 0.84 [-16.00](16.15)
256 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.00)
512 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.72) 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.26)
768 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.44) 0.99 [ -1.18]( 0.00)
1024 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.37) 0.99 [ -0.54]( 0.42)
==================================================================
Test : new-schbench-wakeup-latency
Units : Normalized 99th percentile latency in us
Interpretation: Lower is better
Statistic : Median
==================================================================
#workers: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1 1.00 [ -0.00](14.91) 1.25 [-25.00](11.07)
2 1.00 [ -0.00](18.20) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.43)
4 1.00 [ -0.00](15.10) 0.92 [ 7.69]( 9.11)
8 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.84) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00)
16 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00) 1.09 [ -9.09]( 4.43)
32 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.84) 0.91 [ 9.09]( 0.00)
64 1.00 [ -0.00](10.68) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 5.53)
128 1.00 [ -0.00]( 9.68) 1.20 [-20.00]( 9.11)
256 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.88) 0.96 [ 4.37]( 2.17)
512 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.80) 1.00 [ -0.37]( 1.43)
768 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.92) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00)
1024 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.64)
==================================================================
Test : new-schbench-request-latency
Units : Normalized 99th percentile latency in us
Interpretation: Lower is better
Statistic : Median
==================================================================
#workers: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.27) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00)
2 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ -0.26]( 0.00)
4 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.14) 1.00 [ -0.26]( 0.00)
8 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.00) 1.00 [ -0.26]( 0.00)
16 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.14) 1.00 [ -0.26]( 0.00)
32 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.27) 1.01 [ -0.53]( 0.49)
64 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.14) 1.01 [ -0.53](30.11)
128 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.99) 1.04 [ -4.41]( 3.96)
256 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.52) 0.99 [ 1.15]( 0.43)
512 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.81) 1.01 [ -1.22]( 2.69)
768 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.46) 0.97 [ 3.27]( 0.46)
1024 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.14) 1.00 [ -0.35]( 0.29)
I reran hackbench just to make sure the regression was a blip and as
expected there isn't any regression on the rerun:
==================================================================
Test : hackbench-rerun
Units : Normalized time in seconds
Interpretation: Lower is better
Statistic : AMean
==================================================================
Case: upstream:cee73b1e840c[pct imp](CV) queue:sched/core[pct imp](CV)
1-groups 1.00 [ -0.00](13.66) 0.93 [ 6.88]( 3.91)
2-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 9.40) 0.87 [ 12.95](14.81)
4-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.58) 0.98 [ 2.03]( 3.67)
8-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.52) 1.01 [ -1.28]( 2.73)
16-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 7.05) 0.99 [ 1.11]( 3.96)
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-17 4:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-30 9:34 Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 9:34 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Only set slice protection at pick time Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 15:52 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-01-30 9:34 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/eevdf: Update se->vprot in reweight_entity() Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 16:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-01-30 9:34 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: Increase weight bits for avg_vruntime Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-30 9:34 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Revert 6d71a9c61604 ("sched/fair: Fix EEVDF entity placement bug causing scheduling lag") Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-31 1:47 ` Zhang Qiao
2026-01-31 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 11:23 ` Zhang Qiao
2026-02-01 17:13 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched: Various reweight_entity() fixes Doug Smythies
2026-02-03 6:45 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-03 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-03 12:19 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-03 16:36 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-10 18:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 5:51 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-04 10:15 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-09 15:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-09 16:52 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-10 5:16 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-10 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-10 15:41 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-10 18:09 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-10 18:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-10 20:04 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11 6:28 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11 8:50 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11 23:09 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-10 18:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-10 20:52 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-11 5:21 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-11 8:49 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-11 9:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 10:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 11:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-11 16:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 7:43 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-12 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 17:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 17:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-02-12 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-13 5:22 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-13 6:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-13 10:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-13 14:29 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-14 6:31 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-21 22:51 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-12 19:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 19:37 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-13 6:04 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-11 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 5:54 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-12 7:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-12 15:47 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-12 7:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-11 23:25 ` Doug Smythies
2026-02-11 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-04 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-14 7:20 ` Shubhang Kaushik
2026-02-16 3:14 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-02-16 10:59 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-02-17 14:37 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-02-17 22:02 ` Shubhang Kaushik
2026-02-17 4:20 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2026-02-18 18:37 ` Shubhang Kaushik
2026-02-19 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=94172979-5ff9-4af6-b2b2-c41b00b8ba7d@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quzicheng@huawei.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wangtao554@huawei.com \
--cc=wuyun.abel@bytedance.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®