All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	patrick.bellasi@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 0/8] TurboSched: A scheduler for sustaining Turbo Frequencies for longer durations
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 19:32:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190731173225.GB24222@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4fcd3488-6ba0-bc22-a08d-ceebbce1c120@linux.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2157 bytes --]

Hi!

> >> Abstract
> >> ========
> >>
> >> The modern servers allows multiple cores to run at range of frequencies
> >> higher than rated range of frequencies. But the power budget of the system
> >> inhibits sustaining these higher frequencies for longer durations.
> > 
> > Thermal budget?
> 
> Right, it is a good point, and there can be possibility of Thermal throttling
> which is not covered here.
> But the thermal throttling is less often seen in the servers than the throttling
> due to the Power budget constraints. Also one can change the power cap which leads
> to increase in the throttling and task packing can handle in such
> cases.

Ok. I thought you are doing this due to thermals. If I understand
things correctly, you can go over thermal limits for a few seconds
before the silicon heats up. What is the timescale for power budget?

> BTW, Task packing allows few more cores to remain idle for longer time, so
> shouldn't this decrease thermal throttles upto certain extent?

I guess so, yes.

> > >> These numbers are w.r.t. `turbo_bench.c` multi-threaded test benchmark
> >> which can create two kinds of tasks: CPU bound (High Utilization) and
> >> Jitters (Low Utilization). N in X-axis represents N-CPU bound and N-Jitter
> >> tasks spawned.
> > 
> > Ok, so you have description how it causes 13% improvements. Do you also have metrics how
> > it harms performance.. how much delay is added to unimportant tasks etc...?
> > 
> 
> Yes, if we try to pack the tasks despite of no frequency throttling, we see a regression
> around 5%. For instance, in the synthetic benchmark I used to show performance benefit,
> for lower count of CPU intensive threads (N=2) there is -5% performance drop.
> 
> Talking about the delay added to an unimportant tasks, the result can be lower throughput
> or higher latency for such tasks.

Thanks. I believe it would be good to mention disadvantages in the
documentation, too.

Best regards,
							Pavel
							
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-31 17:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-25  7:08 [RFC v4 0/8] TurboSched: A scheduler for sustaining Turbo Frequencies for longer durations Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 1/8] sched/core: Add manual jitter classification using sched_setattr syscall Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 2/8] sched: Introduce switch to enable TurboSched mode Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 3/8] sched/core: Update turbo_sched count only when required Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 4/8] sched/fair: Define core capacity to limit task packing Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 5/8] powerpc: Define Core Capacity for POWER systems Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 6/8] sched/fair: Tune task wake-up logic to pack jitter tasks Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 7/8] sched/fair: Bound non idle core search within LLC domain Parth Shah
2019-07-25  7:08 ` [RFC v4 8/8] powerpc: Set turbo domain to NUMA node for task packing Parth Shah
2019-07-28 13:31 ` [RFC v4 0/8] TurboSched: A scheduler for sustaining Turbo Frequencies for longer durations Pavel Machek
2019-07-31 16:39   ` Parth Shah
2019-07-31 17:32     ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2019-08-02 11:12       ` Parth Shah

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=20190731173225.GB24222@amd \
    --to=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.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.