From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:46:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210125114623.GY3592@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31300317-89e0-ca5e-d095-920c6cfe8704@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:37:55PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > It's interesting that patch 3 would make any difference on x64 given that
> > it's SMT2. The scan depth should have been similar. It's somewhat expected
> > that it will not be a universal win, particularly once the utilisation
> > is high enough to spill over in sched domains (25%, 50%, 75% utilisation
> > being interesting on 4-socket systems). In such cases, double scanning can
> > still show improvements for workloads that idle rapidly like tbench and
> > hackbench even though it's expensive. The extra scanning gives more time
> > for a CPU to go idle enough to be selected which can improve throughput
> > but at the cost of wake-up latency,
>
> aha, sorry for the confusion. Since you and Vincent discussed to drop
> patch3, I just mentioned I tested 5 patches with patch3, not patch3 alone.
>
Ah, that makes more sense.
> >
> > Hopefully v4 can be tested as well which is now just a single scan.
> >
>
> Sure, may I know the baseline of v4?
>
5.11-rc4.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-26 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-19 11:22 [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: Remove SIS_AVG_CPU Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched/fair: Move avg_scan_cost calculations under SIS_PROP Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: Make select_idle_cpu() proportional to cores Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched/fair: Remove select_idle_smt() Mel Gorman
2021-01-19 11:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched/fair: Merge select_idle_core/cpu() Mel Gorman
2021-01-20 8:30 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-01-20 9:12 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-20 9:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-20 9:54 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-20 9:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-20 13:55 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2021-01-19 11:33 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass Vincent Guittot
2021-01-19 12:02 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-22 9:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-22 10:14 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-22 13:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2021-01-25 4:29 ` Li, Aubrey
2021-01-25 9:04 ` Mel Gorman
2021-01-25 11:37 ` Li, Aubrey
2021-01-25 11:46 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
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=20210125114623.GY3592@techsingularity.net \
--to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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.