From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755745AbaHHIE6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 04:04:58 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:38442 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752889AbaHHIEw (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 04:04:52 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,823,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="573573096" Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:02:55 +0800 From: Yuyang Du To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Jason Low , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall , Waiman Long , Mel Gorman , Mike Galbraith , Rik van Riel , Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , fengguang.wu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load Message-ID: <20140808000255.GF2480@intel.com> References: <1407184118.11407.11.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140804191526.GA2480@intel.com> <1407349295.2384.14.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140807180239.GC2480@intel.com> <1407471532.8365.18.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140807223007.GD2480@intel.com> <20140808071103.GD3935@laptop> <20140807231535.GE2480@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140807231535.GE2480@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:15:35AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:11:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 06:30:08AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > | 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 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. > > > > Been a bit busy.. but in general I worry about the performance decrease > > on the lighter loads. I should probably run some workloads on my 2 > > socket and 4 socket machines, but the coming few weeks will be very busy > > and I'm afraid I'll not get around to it in a timely manner. > > Ok. I understand. From our part, Fengguang's LKP does not include light loads, > we also need some such tests to confirm this and see what is next. > > Since typical benchmarks would be heavy ones, what do you suggest for light loads? > > Jason, possible you can share some of your workloads? > Just heard from Fengguang, LKP has AIM7, which is not private workload. We will do it. Thanks, Jason. +Fengguang