From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
alex.shi@intel.com, Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:49:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130220104958.GA9152@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51079178.3070002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> v3 change log:
> Fix small logical issues (Thanks to Mike Galbraith).
> Change the way of handling WAKE.
>
> This patch set is trying to simplify the select_task_rq_fair()
> with schedule balance map.
>
> After get rid of the complex code and reorganize the logical,
> pgbench show the improvement, more the clients, bigger the
> improvement.
>
> Prev: Post:
>
> | db_size | clients | | tps | | tps |
> +---------+---------+ +-------+ +-------+
> | 22 MB | 1 | | 10788 | | 10881 |
> | 22 MB | 2 | | 21617 | | 21837 |
> | 22 MB | 4 | | 41597 | | 42645 |
> | 22 MB | 8 | | 54622 | | 57808 |
> | 22 MB | 12 | | 50753 | | 54527 |
> | 22 MB | 16 | | 50433 | | 56368 | +11.77%
> | 22 MB | 24 | | 46725 | | 54319 | +16.25%
> | 22 MB | 32 | | 43498 | | 54650 | +25.64%
> | 7484 MB | 1 | | 7894 | | 8301 |
> | 7484 MB | 2 | | 19477 | | 19622 |
> | 7484 MB | 4 | | 36458 | | 38242 |
> | 7484 MB | 8 | | 48423 | | 50796 |
> | 7484 MB | 12 | | 46042 | | 49938 |
> | 7484 MB | 16 | | 46274 | | 50507 | +9.15%
> | 7484 MB | 24 | | 42583 | | 49175 | +15.48%
> | 7484 MB | 32 | | 36413 | | 49148 | +34.97%
> | 15 GB | 1 | | 7742 | | 7876 |
> | 15 GB | 2 | | 19339 | | 19531 |
> | 15 GB | 4 | | 36072 | | 37389 |
> | 15 GB | 8 | | 48549 | | 50570 |
> | 15 GB | 12 | | 45716 | | 49542 |
> | 15 GB | 16 | | 46127 | | 49647 | +7.63%
> | 15 GB | 24 | | 42539 | | 48639 | +14.34%
> | 15 GB | 32 | | 36038 | | 48560 | +34.75%
>
> Please check the patch for more details about schedule balance map.
The changes look clean and reasoable, any ideas exactly *why* it
speeds up?
I.e. are there one or two key changes in the before/after logic
and scheduling patterns that you can identify as causing the
speedup?
Such changes also typically have a chance to cause regressions
in other workloads - when that happens we need this kind of
information to be able to enact plan-B.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-20 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-29 9:08 [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair() Michael Wang
2013-01-29 9:09 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] sched: schedule balance map foundation Michael Wang
2013-02-20 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-21 4:52 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-20 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-21 4:58 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 2:53 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 3:33 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-22 4:19 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 4:46 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-22 5:05 ` Michael Wang
2013-01-29 9:09 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] sched: build schedule balance map Michael Wang
2013-01-29 9:10 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] sched: simplify select_task_rq_fair() with " Michael Wang
2013-02-18 5:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair() Michael Wang
2013-02-20 10:49 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-02-20 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 14:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-21 5:21 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 5:14 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 4:51 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 6:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-21 7:00 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 8:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-21 9:08 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 9:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 2:36 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 5:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 5:26 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 6:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 6:42 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 8:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 8:35 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 9:10 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 9:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 9:58 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 9:20 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-21 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 2:37 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 5:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 6:06 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 6:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 8:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 9:11 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 9:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-22 10:08 ` Michael Wang
2013-02-22 9:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 9:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-22 10:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 12:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-22 12:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 13:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-22 14:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-22 14:42 ` Mike Galbraith
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=20130220104958.GA9152@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=wangyun@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).