From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
alex.shi@intel.com, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:49:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130220104958.GA9152@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51079178.3070002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> v3 change log:
> Fix small logical issues (Thanks to Mike Galbraith).
> Change the way of handling WAKE.
>
> This patch set is trying to simplify the select_task_rq_fair()
> with schedule balance map.
>
> After get rid of the complex code and reorganize the logical,
> pgbench show the improvement, more the clients, bigger the
> improvement.
>
> Prev: Post:
>
> | db_size | clients | | tps | | tps |
> +---------+---------+ +-------+ +-------+
> | 22 MB | 1 | | 10788 | | 10881 |
> | 22 MB | 2 | | 21617 | | 21837 |
> | 22 MB | 4 | | 41597 | | 42645 |
> | 22 MB | 8 | | 54622 | | 57808 |
> | 22 MB | 12 | | 50753 | | 54527 |
> | 22 MB | 16 | | 50433 | | 56368 | +11.77%
> | 22 MB | 24 | | 46725 | | 54319 | +16.25%
> | 22 MB | 32 | | 43498 | | 54650 | +25.64%
> | 7484 MB | 1 | | 7894 | | 8301 |
> | 7484 MB | 2 | | 19477 | | 19622 |
> | 7484 MB | 4 | | 36458 | | 38242 |
> | 7484 MB | 8 | | 48423 | | 50796 |
> | 7484 MB | 12 | | 46042 | | 49938 |
> | 7484 MB | 16 | | 46274 | | 50507 | +9.15%
> | 7484 MB | 24 | | 42583 | | 49175 | +15.48%
> | 7484 MB | 32 | | 36413 | | 49148 | +34.97%
> | 15 GB | 1 | | 7742 | | 7876 |
> | 15 GB | 2 | | 19339 | | 19531 |
> | 15 GB | 4 | | 36072 | | 37389 |
> | 15 GB | 8 | | 48549 | | 50570 |
> | 15 GB | 12 | | 45716 | | 49542 |
> | 15 GB | 16 | | 46127 | | 49647 | +7.63%
> | 15 GB | 24 | | 42539 | | 48639 | +14.34%
> | 15 GB | 32 | | 36038 | | 48560 | +34.75%
>
> Please check the patch for more details about schedule balance map.
The changes look clean and reasoable, any ideas exactly *why* it
speeds up?
I.e. are there one or two key changes in the before/after logic
and scheduling patterns that you can identify as causing the
speedup?
Such changes also typically have a chance to cause regressions
in other workloads - when that happens we need this kind of
information to be able to enact plan-B.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-20 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-29 9:08 [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair() Michael Wang
2013-01-29 9:09 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] sched: schedule balance map foundation Michael Wang
2013-02-20 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-21 4:52 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-20 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-21 4:58 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 2:53 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 3:33 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-22 4:19 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 4:46 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-22 5:05 ` Michael Wang
2013-01-29 9:09 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] sched: build schedule balance map Michael Wang
2013-01-29 9:10 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] sched: simplify select_task_rq_fair() with " Michael Wang
2013-02-18 5:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair() Michael Wang
2013-02-20 10:49 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-02-20 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 14:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-21 5:21 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 5:14 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 4:51 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 6:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-21 7:00 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 8:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-21 9:08 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 9:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 2:36 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 5:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 5:26 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 6:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 6:42 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 8:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 8:35 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 9:10 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 9:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 9:58 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 9:20 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 2:37 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 5:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 6:06 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 6:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 8:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 9:11 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 9:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 10:08 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 9:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 9:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-22 10:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 12:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-22 12:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 13:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-22 14:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 14:42 ` Mike Galbraith
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=20130220104958.GA9152@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=wangyun@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.