From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:00:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1231081200.17224.44.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1230981761.27180.10.camel@marge.simson.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2145 bytes --]
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 12:22 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 15:46 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> [2009-01-03 08:29:25]:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 23:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike, would you be interesting in having a look at sched_mc=2 as a
> > > > kernel-wide default - and give it your blessing if you find it to be a net
> > > > improvement for the various performance and interactivity tests you do?
> > >
> > > Sure.
> >
> > Thanks Mike and Ingo. I will be glad to help with test and benchmarks
> > on the platforms that I have access.
> >
> > I am presently working on sysbench.
>
> The testing I can do is rather severely limited since I have only one
> Q6600. I butchered mc_capable() to use what I can though, ie see if
> SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE still harms tbench and mysql+oltp. I think that's
> about all I can do on my wee box.
I do not see any difference for tbench, results are within jitter. I do
for mysql+oltp, and the test results are fairly strange.
If you take a peek at the attached chart: the 2.6.26.8 data is with
scalability backports/fixes. That's where our 29-to-be should be.
Domain tunings in this kernel are identical to 28/29 stock as well.
Note that there is no knee at 8 clients. If I turn SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE
on in 26+backports, peak drops a tad, and that knee re-appears, just as
before we turned the thing off. Throughput after the knee also drops a
tad, nearly to the point where tip+sched_mc=2 now _comes up to_, and it
definitely is SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE making the difference. IOW, what used
to be a loser, and still is a loser in 26+fixes, is now a winner in tip
after the knee which should not be there. Seems something else has
changed, re-introducing the knee, and cutting throughput a tad.
(The hefty difference at the very end I knew about. SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE
helps considerably when mysql is very thoroughly jammed up on itself)
When I look at that chart, it looks almost like SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is
partially offsetting some other problem.
I haven't done any interactivity testing yet.
-Mike
[-- Attachment #2: zzz.jpg --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 75980 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-04 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-18 17:55 [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 1/8] sched: convert BALANCE_FOR_xx_POWER to inline functions Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 2/8] sched: Framework for sched_mc/smt_power_savings=N Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 3/8] sched: favour lower logical cpu number for sched_mc balance Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 4/8] sched: nominate preferred wakeup cpu Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 18:12 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-19 21:55 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-19 22:19 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-19 22:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 22:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-19 22:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-20 4:36 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-20 4:44 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-20 7:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-20 10:02 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-20 10:36 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-20 10:56 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-21 8:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 5/8] sched: bias task wakeups to preferred semi-idle packages Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 18:11 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 6/8] sched: activate active load balancing in new idle cpus Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 7/8] sched: add SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE at MC and CPU level for sched_mc>0 Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 17:56 ` [PATCH v7 8/8] sched: idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle() Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-18 18:12 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-18 20:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-18 20:19 ` [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n Ingo Molnar
2008-12-18 20:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 8:29 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-19 8:24 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-19 13:34 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-29 23:43 ` MinChan Kim
2008-12-30 2:48 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-30 6:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-30 6:44 ` Balbir Singh
2008-12-30 7:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-30 18:07 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-02 7:26 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-02 22:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-03 7:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-03 10:16 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-03 11:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-04 15:00 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-01-04 18:19 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-04 19:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-05 3:20 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-05 4:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-05 6:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-05 15:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 9:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 15:07 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-06 17:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 18:45 ` Balbir Singh
2009-01-07 8:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-07 11:26 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-07 14:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-07 15:35 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-08 8:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-08 17:46 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-01-09 6:00 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-01-06 14:54 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-30 17:31 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
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=1231081200.17224.44.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox