From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 11:45:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190426094545.GD126896@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190425213145.GY18914@techsingularity.net>
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
> > > I can show a comparison with equal levels of parallelisation but with
> > > HT off, it is a completely broken configuration and I do not think a
> > > comparison like that makes any sense.
> >
> > I would still be interested in that comparison, because I'd like
> > to learn whether there's any true *inherent* performance advantage to
> > HyperThreading for that particular workload, for exactly tuned
> > parallelism.
> >
>
> It really isn't a fair comparison. MPI seems to behave very differently
> when a machine is saturated. It's documented as changing its behaviour
> as it tries to avoid the worst consequences of saturation.
>
> Curiously, the results on the 2-socket machine were not as bad as I
> feared when the HT configuration is running with twice the number of
> threads as there are CPUs
>
> Amean bt 771.15 ( 0.00%) 1086.74 * -40.93%*
> Amean cg 445.92 ( 0.00%) 543.41 * -21.86%*
> Amean ep 70.01 ( 0.00%) 96.29 * -37.53%*
> Amean is 16.75 ( 0.00%) 21.19 * -26.51%*
> Amean lu 882.84 ( 0.00%) 595.14 * 32.59%*
> Amean mg 84.10 ( 0.00%) 80.02 * 4.84%*
> Amean sp 1353.88 ( 0.00%) 1384.10 * -2.23%*
Yeah, so what I wanted to suggest is a parallel numeric throughput test
with few inter-process data dependencies, and see whether HT actually
improves total throughput versus the no-HT case.
No over-saturation - but exactly as many threads as logical CPUs.
I.e. with 20 physical cores and 40 logical CPUs the numbers to compare
would be a 'nosmt' benchmark running 20 threads, versus a SMT test
running 40 threads.
I.e. how much does SMT improve total throughput when the workload's
parallelism is tuned to utilize 100% of the available CPUs?
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-26 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-23 16:18 [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/17] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/17] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/17] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/17] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/17] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/17] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/17] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/17] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/17] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-26 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 16:10 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 5:38 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/17] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 0:08 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-24 20:43 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 22:12 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-25 14:35 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-22 19:52 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 0:17 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-24 20:43 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 3:36 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-10 13:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 6:15 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-01 23:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-05-03 0:06 ` Tim Chen
2019-05-08 15:49 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-08 18:19 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-08 18:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 0:01 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 0:25 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 1:38 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 2:14 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 15:10 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 17:50 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-10 0:09 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/17] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-25 14:26 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-26 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 14:19 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-10 15:12 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/17] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 7:13 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-18 15:37 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-20 13:04 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-20 14:04 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-05-21 8:19 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-21 13:24 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/17] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/17] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 23:46 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 14:03 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 14:05 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/17] sched: Wake up sibling if it has something to run Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-26 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 12:36 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/17] sched: Debug bits Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-17 17:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-23 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 Phil Auld
2019-04-23 18:45 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 3:53 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-06 19:39 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-08 2:30 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-08 17:49 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-09 2:11 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-15 21:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 23:25 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 11:19 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-15 21:39 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 13:13 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 14:00 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-25 3:15 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-25 9:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 14:46 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-25 18:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 18:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-25 19:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 21:31 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 10:43 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 18:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-26 19:49 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 9:45 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-04-26 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-27 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 14:15 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-26 2:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-26 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 3:51 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-27 9:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 14:04 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-27 14:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 15:54 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-28 9:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-28 10:29 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-28 12:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-29 2:17 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-29 6:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-29 13:25 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-29 15:39 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-30 1:24 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-29 16:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-30 1:34 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-30 4:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-05-18 0:58 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-05-18 1:08 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-25 14:36 ` Julien Desfossez
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=20190426094545.GD126896@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.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.