From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753660Ab3A2GBq (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:01:46 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:13193 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753085Ab3A2GBo (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:01:44 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,557,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="283399190" Message-ID: <510765F6.9040203@intel.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:02:30 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling References: <1358996820-23036-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130124094439.GB13463@pd.tnic> <51014E34.60309@intel.com> <510493E4.8060602@intel.com> <20130127104039.GC8894@pd.tnic> <51060A6D.4090208@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <51060A6D.4090208@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/28/2013 01:19 PM, 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. Sorry, the testing configuration is unfair for this specjbb2005 results here. I set JVM hard pin and use hugepage for peak performance. When remove the hard pin and no hugepage, the balance/powersaving both drop about 5% VS performance policy, and performance policy result is similar with 3.8-rc5. >> >> 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. > -- Thanks Alex