Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling

[Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>]

On 01/28/2013 02:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:19 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: 
>> On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9,
>>>> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads
>>>> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear
>>>> performance change found.
>>>
>>> Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is
>>> there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions
>>> with the bunch of benchmarks.
>>>
>>>> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark,
>>>> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever
>>>> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving
>>>> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change.
>>>
>>> I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit
>>> when saving power...
>>>
>>
>> BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master.
>> The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy.
>> The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical.
> 
> That makes sense.  How the numa scheduling numbers compare to mainline?
> Do you have all three available, mainline, and tip w. w/o powersaving
> policy?
> 

I once caught 20~40% performance increasing on sched numa VS mainline
3.7-rc5. but have no baseline to compare balance/powersaving performance
since lower data are acceptable for balance/powersaving and
tip/master changes too quickly to follow up at that time.
:)

> -Mike
> 
> 


-- 
Thanks Alex