From: Breno Leitao <leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] sched: allow arch override of cpu power
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:49:32 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4863F2CC.1030907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1213835374-10868-1-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com>
Hi Nathan,
Nathan Lynch wrote:
> There is an "interesting" quality of POWER6 cores, which each have 2
> hardware threads: assuming one thread on the core is idle, the primary
> thread is a little "faster" than the secondary thread. To illustrate:
>
I found this feature interesting and decided to do some tests.
After some tests I found that the example you post really runs fast in
the first CPU, but a more "elaborated" application runs slower on the
first CPU.
Here is a small example:
# taskset 0x1 time -f "%e, %U, %S" ./a.out ; taskset 0x2 time -f "%e,
%U, %S" ./a.out
10.77, 10.72, 0.01
10.53, 10.48, 0.01
# taskset 0x2 time -f "%e, %U, %S" ./a.out ; taskset 0x1 time -f "%e,
%U, %S" ./a.out
10.55, 10.50, 0.01
10.77, 10.72, 0.01
# cat calc.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
int j = 0;
float i = 42;
srand(123);
while (j++ < 100000000){
i = i*i + i;
i = i/2 + random(2);
}
printf("%d\n", i);
return 0;
}
# cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
cpu : POWER6 (architected), altivec supported
clock : 5000.001000MHz
revision : 3.2 (pvr 003e 0302)
processor : 1
cpu : POWER6 (architected), altivec supported
clock : 5000.001000MHz
revision : 3.2 (pvr 003e 0302)
...
Note that the IRQ are balanced among the 8 CPUs, and the machine is idle.
Do you know why I get this difference? Something wrong with the test?
Thanks
-
Breno Leitao
Linux Technology Center Brazil
Phone: +55-16-8115-3915 (T/L: 839-1293)
leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-26 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-19 0:29 [RFC/PATCH 0/3] sched: allow arch override of cpu power Nathan Lynch
2008-06-19 0:29 ` [RFC/PATCH 1/3] sched: support arch override of sched_group " Nathan Lynch
2008-06-19 0:29 ` [RFC/PATCH 2/3] add cpu_power to machdep_calls, override SD_SIBLING_INIT Nathan Lynch
2008-06-19 0:29 ` [RFC/PATCH 3/3] adjust cpu power for secondary threads on POWER6 Nathan Lynch
2008-06-19 2:58 ` Olof Johansson
2008-06-19 3:03 ` Olof Johansson
2008-06-19 9:50 ` [RFC/PATCH 0/3] sched: allow arch override of cpu power Ingo Molnar
2008-06-19 17:09 ` Nathan Lynch
2008-06-26 19:49 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2008-06-27 14:23 ` Nathan Lynch
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=4863F2CC.1030907@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ntl@pobox.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).