From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753147Ab3A0Pv5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:51:57 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:50197 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751730Ab3A0Pvy (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:51:54 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ZZfJU10kZedX67vcu+HBDzMH4Y2Oki65cpPZ66K N5gz5dUU0Di14P Message-ID: <1359301903.5805.11.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling From: Mike Galbraith To: Alex Shi Cc: 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, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:51:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <51052ACB.3070703@intel.com> References: <1358996820-23036-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130124094439.GB13463@pd.tnic> <51014E34.60309@intel.com> <510493E4.8060602@intel.com> <1359261385.5803.46.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130127103508.GB8894@pd.tnic> <51052ACB.3070703@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 21:25 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 01/27/2013 06:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 05:36:25AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> With aim7 compute on 4 node 40 core box, I see stable throughput > >> improvement at tasks = nr_cores and below w. balance and powersaving. ... > > Ok, this is sick. How is balance and powersaving better than perf? Both > > have much more jobs per minute than perf; is that because we do pack > > much more tasks per cpu with balance and powersaving? > > Maybe it is due to the lazy balancing on balance/powersaving. You can > check the CS times in /proc/pid/status. Well, it's not wakeup path, limiting entry frequency per waker did zip squat nada to any policy throughput. -Mike