From: Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>
To: Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:09:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200301190009.32245.efocht@ess.nec.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1042848809.24867.483.camel@dyn9-47-17-164.beaverton.ibm.com>
The scan through a piece of the parameter space delivered quite
unconclusive results. I used the IDLE_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK multipliers
2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and the BUSY_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK multipliers 2, 5,
10, 20.
The benchmarks I tried were kernbench (average and error of 5 kernel
compiles) and hackbench (5 runs for each number of chatter groups
(10,25,50,100). The 2.5.59 scheduler result is printed first, then a
matrix with all combinations of idle and busy rebalance
multipliers. Each value is followed by its standard error (coming from
the 5 measurements). I didn't measure numa_bench, those values depend
mostly on the initial load balancing and showed no clear
tendency/difference.
The machine is an NEC TX7 (small version, 8 Itanium2 CPUs in 4 nodes).
The results:
- kernbench UserTime is best for the 2.5.59 scheduler (623s). IngoB0
best value 627.33s for idle=20ms, busy=2000ms.
- hackbench: 2.5.59 scheduler is significantly better for all
measurements.
I suppose this comes from the fact that the 2.5.59 version has the
chance to load_balance across nodes when a cpu goes idle. No idea what
other reason it could be... Maybe anybody else?
Kernbench:
==========
2.5.59 : Elapsed = 86.29(1.24)
ingo B0 : Elapsed
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 86.25(0.45) 86.62(1.56) 86.29(0.99) 85.99(0.60) 86.91(1.09)
5 86.87(1.12) 86.38(0.82) 86.00(0.69) 86.14(0.39) 86.47(0.68)
10 86.06(0.18) 86.23(0.38) 86.63(0.57) 86.82(0.95) 86.06(0.15)
20 86.64(1.24) 86.43(0.74) 86.15(0.99) 86.76(1.34) 86.70(0.68)
2.5.59 : UserTime = 623.24(0.46)
ingo B0 : UserTime
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 629.05(0.32) 628.54(0.53) 628.51(0.32) 628.66(0.23) 628.72(0.20)
5 628.14(0.88) 628.10(0.76) 628.33(0.41) 628.45(0.48) 628.11(0.37)
10 627.97(0.30) 627.77(0.23) 627.75(0.21) 627.33(0.45) 627.63(0.52)
20 627.55(0.36) 627.67(0.58) 627.36(0.67) 627.84(0.28) 627.69(0.59)
2.5.59 : SysTime = 21.83(0.16)
ingo B0 : SysTime
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 21.99(0.26) 21.89(0.12) 22.12(0.16) 22.06(0.21) 22.44(0.51)
5 22.07(0.21) 22.29(0.54) 22.15(0.08) 22.09(0.26) 21.90(0.18)
10 22.01(0.20) 22.42(0.42) 22.28(0.23) 22.04(0.37) 22.41(0.26)
20 22.03(0.20) 22.08(0.30) 22.31(0.27) 22.03(0.19) 22.35(0.33)
Hackbench 10
=============
2.5.59 : 0.77(0.03)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 0.90(0.07) 0.88(0.05) 0.84(0.05) 0.82(0.04) 0.85(0.06)
5 0.87(0.05) 0.90(0.07) 0.88(0.08) 0.89(0.09) 0.86(0.07)
10 0.85(0.06) 0.83(0.05) 0.86(0.08) 0.84(0.06) 0.87(0.06)
20 0.85(0.05) 0.87(0.07) 0.83(0.05) 0.86(0.07) 0.87(0.05)
Hackbench 25
=============
2.5.59 : 1.96(0.05)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 2.20(0.13) 2.21(0.12) 2.23(0.10) 2.20(0.10) 2.16(0.07)
5 2.13(0.12) 2.17(0.13) 2.18(0.08) 2.10(0.11) 2.16(0.10)
10 2.19(0.08) 2.21(0.12) 2.22(0.09) 2.11(0.10) 2.15(0.10)
20 2.11(0.17) 2.13(0.08) 2.18(0.06) 2.13(0.11) 2.13(0.14)
Hackbench 50
=============
2.5.59 : 3.78(0.10)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 4.31(0.13) 4.30(0.29) 4.29(0.15) 4.23(0.20) 4.14(0.10)
5 4.35(0.16) 4.34(0.24) 4.24(0.24) 4.09(0.18) 4.12(0.14)
10 4.35(0.23) 4.21(0.14) 4.36(0.24) 4.18(0.12) 4.36(0.21)
20 4.34(0.14) 4.27(0.17) 4.18(0.18) 4.29(0.24) 4.08(0.09)
Hackbench 100
==============
2.5.59 : 7.85(0.37)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 8.21(0.42) 8.07(0.25) 8.32(0.30) 8.06(0.26) 8.10(0.13)
5 8.13(0.25) 8.06(0.33) 8.14(0.49) 8.24(0.24) 8.04(0.20)
10 8.05(0.17) 8.16(0.13) 8.13(0.16) 8.05(0.24) 8.01(0.30)
20 8.21(0.25) 8.23(0.24) 8.36(0.41) 8.30(0.37) 8.10(0.30)
Regards,
Erich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-18 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-09 23:54 Minature NUMA scheduler Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-10 5:36 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-10 16:34 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-10 16:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-12 23:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-12 23:55 ` NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Erich Focht
2003-01-13 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 11:32 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 15:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 15:46 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 19:03 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 1:23 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 4:45 ` [Lse-tech] " Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 4:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 11:14 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 15:55 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:07 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-14 16:23 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:43 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 19:02 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 21:56 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 15:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 0:14 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-16 6:05 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 16:47 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 18:07 ` Robert Love
2003-01-16 18:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 18:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-16 19:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 20:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 20:29 ` [Lse-tech] " Rick Lindsley
2003-01-16 23:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 7:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 8:47 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 14:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 15:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 15:30 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 16:58 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 20:54 ` NUMA sched -> pooling scheduler (inc HT) Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 21:34 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-19 0:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-17 18:19 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 7:08 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-18 8:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 8:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-19 4:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-17 17:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 18:11 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 19:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 19:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 0:13 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 13:31 ` [patch] tunable rebalance rates for sched-2.5.59-B0 Erich Focht
2003-01-18 23:09 ` Erich Focht [this message]
2003-01-20 9:28 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 12:07 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 17:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 19:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 21:18 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-D7 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-21 1:11 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 3:15 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 16:41 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-22 16:20 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:35 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-02-03 18:23 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-E2 Ingo Molnar
2003-02-03 20:47 ` Robert Love
2003-02-04 9:31 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 17:04 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-21 17:44 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 23:09 ` Matthew Dobson
2003-01-16 23:45 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-17 11:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 14:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:44 ` John Bradford
2003-01-14 16:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-15 0:05 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 7:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 5:50 ` [Lse-tech] Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 16:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 15:13 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 10:56 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-11 14:43 ` [Lse-tech] Minature NUMA scheduler Bill Davidsen
2003-01-12 23:24 ` Erich Focht
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=200301190009.32245.efocht@ess.nec.de \
--to=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.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.