From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:00:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1231081200.17224.44.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1230981761.27180.10.camel@marge.simson.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2145 bytes --]
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 12:22 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 15:46 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> [2009-01-03 08:29:25]:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 23:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike, would you be interesting in having a look at sched_mc=2 as a
> > > > kernel-wide default - and give it your blessing if you find it to be a net
> > > > improvement for the various performance and interactivity tests you do?
> > >
> > > Sure.
> >
> > Thanks Mike and Ingo. I will be glad to help with test and benchmarks
> > on the platforms that I have access.
> >
> > I am presently working on sysbench.
>
> The testing I can do is rather severely limited since I have only one
> Q6600. I butchered mc_capable() to use what I can though, ie see if
> SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE still harms tbench and mysql+oltp. I think that's
> about all I can do on my wee box.
I do not see any difference for tbench, results are within jitter. I do
for mysql+oltp, and the test results are fairly strange.
If you take a peek at the attached chart: the 2.6.26.8 data is with
scalability backports/fixes. That's where our 29-to-be should be.
Domain tunings in this kernel are identical to 28/29 stock as well.
Note that there is no knee at 8 clients. If I turn SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE
on in 26+backports, peak drops a tad, and that knee re-appears, just as
before we turned the thing off. Throughput after the knee also drops a
tad, nearly to the point where tip+sched_mc=2 now _comes up to_, and it
definitely is SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE making the difference. IOW, what used
to be a loser, and still is a loser in 26+fixes, is now a winner in tip
after the knee which should not be there. Seems something else has
changed, re-introducing the knee, and cutting throughput a tad.
(The hefty difference at the very end I knew about. SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE
helps considerably when mysql is very thoroughly jammed up on itself)
When I look at that chart, it looks almost like SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is
partially offsetting some other problem.
I haven't done any interactivity testing yet.
-Mike
[-- Attachment #2: zzz.jpg --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 75980 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-04 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-18 17:55 [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 1/8] sched: convert BALANCE_FOR_xx_POWER to inline functions Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 2/8] sched: Framework for sched_mc/smt_power_savings=N Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 3/8] sched: favour lower logical cpu number for sched_mc balance Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 4/8] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 18:12 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-19 21:55 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-19 22:19 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-19 22:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 22:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-19 22:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-20 4:36 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-20 4:44 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-20 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-20 10:02 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-20 10:36 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-20 10:56 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-21 8:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 5/8] sched: bias task wakeups to preferred semi-idle packages Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 18:11 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 6/8] sched: activate active load balancing in new idle cpus Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 7/8] sched: add SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE at MC and CPU level for sched_mc>0 Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 8/8] sched: idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle() Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 18:12 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-18 20:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-18 20:19 ` [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n Ingo Molnar
2008-12-18 20:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 8:29 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-19 8:24 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-19 13:34 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-29 23:43 ` MinChan Kim
2008-12-30 2:48 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-30 6:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-30 6:44 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-30 7:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-30 18:07 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-02 7:26 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-02 22:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-03 7:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-03 10:16 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-03 11:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-04 15:00 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-01-04 18:19 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-04 19:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-05 3:20 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-05 4:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-05 6:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-05 15:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 9:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 15:07 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-06 17:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 18:45 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 8:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-07 11:26 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-07 14:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-07 15:35 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-08 8:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-08 17:46 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-09 6:00 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 14:54 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-30 17:31 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
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=1231081200.17224.44.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=svaidy@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.