linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 06:30:08 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140807223007.GD2480@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1407471532.8365.18.camel@j-VirtualBox>

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:18:52PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> 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.
> 

Thanks a lot, Jason.

So for this particular set of workloads on a big machine, I think the
result is mixed and overall "neutral", but I expected the variation probably
could be bigger especially for light workloads.

Any comment from the maintainers and others? Ping Peter and Ben, I haven't
heard from you for the 5th version.

Yuyang

  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-08  6:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-04 20:28 [PATCH] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load Jason Low
2014-08-04 19:15 ` Yuyang Du
2014-08-04 21:42   ` Yuyang Du
2014-08-05 15:42   ` Jason Low
2014-08-06 18:21   ` Jason Low
2014-08-07 18:02     ` Yuyang Du
2014-08-08  4:18       ` Jason Low
2014-08-07 22:30         ` Yuyang Du [this message]
2014-08-08  7:11           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-07 23:15             ` Yuyang Du
2014-08-08  0:02               ` Yuyang Du
2014-08-04 20:52 ` bsegall
2014-08-04 21:27   ` Jason Low
2014-08-11 17:31   ` Jason Low
2014-08-04 21:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-05 17:53 ` Waiman Long

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=20140807223007.GD2480@intel.com \
    --to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
    --cc=aswin@hp.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.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).