From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>,
Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>,
Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>,
Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-E6
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:09:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <376170000.1044392941@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302041800280.12001-100000@localhost.localdomain>
> this is the -E6 patch, with most of the HT-unrelated tunings and leftover
> changes (noticed by Robert) removed. I kept the activation reorganization
> because that is important in the HT case as well.
>
> based on Erich's observations i also added AGRESSIVE_IDLE_STEAL, which
> defaults to 1 currently - could anyone try it with 0 on a NUMA box, how
> much of a difference does it make?
Passive aggressive results below - 16x NUMA-Q:
Summary: passive seems OK, though no better than current (for me).
Aggressive seems a little worse than current, though not too drastically.
--------------------------------------
Kernbench-2: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59-gcc3.2 45.86 563.63 119.58 1489.33
2.5.59-E6-agressive 46.09 564.41 120.19 1484.67
2.5.59-E6-passive 46.20 564.53 120.00 1481.33
Kernbench-16: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus)
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59-gcc3.2 47.15 567.41 143.72 1507.50
2.5.59-E6-agressive 47.58 567.42 146.40 1499.50
2.5.59-E6-passive 47.51 567.56 144.57 1498.33
DISCLAIMER: SPEC(tm) and the benchmark name SDET(tm) are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This
benchmarking was performed for research purposes only, and the run results
are non-compliant and not-comparable with any published results.
Results are shown as percentages of the first set displayed
SDET 1 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 5.2%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 93.5% 5.4%
2.5.59-E6-passive 104.2% 1.6%
SDET 2 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 7.1%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 100.9% 4.0%
2.5.59-E6-passive 102.8% 9.9%
SDET 4 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 5.3%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 105.3% 8.1%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.8% 7.2%
SDET 8 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 4.7%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 99.7% 2.9%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.2% 4.3%
SDET 16 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.8%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 97.8% 0.3%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.4% 1.7%
SDET 32 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.6%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 100.3% 1.5%
2.5.59-E6-passive 99.6% 1.6%
SDET 64 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.1%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 99.8% 0.6%
2.5.59-E6-passive 99.4% 1.1%
NUMA schedbench 4:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 41.80 107.76 0.73
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 43.65 116.28 0.78
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 41.56 93.15 0.65
NUMA schedbench 8:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 38.00 229.83 2.11
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 60.41 298.63 1.91
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 41.76 250.80 1.80
NUMA schedbench 16:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 57.28 839.21 2.85
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 57.36 849.87 2.90
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 57.45 850.05 3.55
NUMA schedbench 32:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 118.44 1788.09 6.25
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 117.88 1796.30 6.13
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 116.91 1802.43 6.38
NUMA schedbench 64:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 234.55 3633.76 15.02
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 233.69 3614.37 14.53
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 236.53 3635.14 15.29
parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-04 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302041800280.12001-100000@localhost.localdomain>]
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=376170000.1044392941@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--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=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ricklind@us.ibm.com \
--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.