From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752874AbaHHES7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:18:59 -0400 Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.54]:38221 "EHLO g4t3426.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751030AbaHHES5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:18:57 -0400 Message-ID: <1407471532.8365.18.camel@j-VirtualBox> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load From: Jason Low To: Yuyang Du Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall , Waiman Long , Mel Gorman , Mike Galbraith , Rik van Riel , Aswin Chandramouleeswaran Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:18:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140807180239.GC2480@intel.com> References: <1407184118.11407.11.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140804191526.GA2480@intel.com> <1407349295.2384.14.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140807180239.GC2480@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-08-08 at 02:02 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:21:35AM -0700, Jason Low wrote: > > I ran these tests with most of the AIM7 workloads to compare its > > performance between a 3.16 kernel and the kernel with these patches > > applied. > > > > The table below contains the percent difference between the baseline > > kernel and the kernel with the patches at various user counts. A > > positive percent means the kernel with the patches performed better, > > while a negative percent means the baseline performed better. > > > > Based on these numbers, for many of the workloads, the change was > > beneficial in those highly contended, while it had - impact in many > > of the lightly/moderately contended case (10 to 90 users). > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > | 10-90 | 100-1000 | 1100-2000 > > | users | users | users > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > alltests | -3.37% | -10.64% | -2.25% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > all_utime | +0.33% | +3.73% | +3.33% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > compute | -5.97% | +2.34% | +3.22% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > custom | -31.61% | -10.29% | +15.23% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > disk | +24.64% | +28.96% | +21.28% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > fserver | -1.35% | +4.82% | +9.35% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > high_systime | -6.73% | -6.28% | +12.36% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > shared | -28.31% | -19.99% | -7.10% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > short | -44.63% | -37.48% | -33.62% > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Thanks, Jason. Sorry for late response. > > What about the variation of the tests? The machine you test on? Hi Yuyang, These tests were also done on an 8 socket machine (80 cores). In terms of variation between the average throughputs, typically the noise range is about 2% in many of the workloads. Jason