From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched/numa: Do not move imbalanced load purely on the basis of an idle CPU
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:24:10 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180912065410.GA5352@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180910094147.GH1719@techsingularity.net>
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> [2018-09-10 10:41:47]:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > Srikar's patch here:
> > >
> > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > >
> > > Also frobs this condition, but in a less radical way. Does that yield
> > > similar results?
> >
> > I can check. I do wonder of course if the less radical approach just means
> > that automatic NUMA balancing and the load balancer simply disagree about
> > placement at a different time. It'll take a few days to have an answer as
> > the battery of workloads to check this take ages.
> >
>
> Tests completed over the weekend and I've found that the performance of
> both patches are very similar for two machines (both 2 socket) running a
> variety of workloads. Hence, I'm not worried about which patch gets picked
> up. However, I would prefer my own on the grounds that the additional
> complexity does not appear to get us anything. Of course, that changes if
> Srikar's tests on his larger ppc64 machines show the more complex approach
> is justified.
>
Running SPECJbb2005. Higher bops are better.
Kernel A = 4.18+ 13 sched patches part of v4.19-rc1.
Kernel B = Kernel A + 6 patches (http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1533276841-16341-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
Kernel C = Kernel B - (Avoid task migration for small numa improvement) i.e
http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
+ 2 patches from Mel
(Do not move imbalanced load purely)
http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180907101139.20760-5-mgorman@techsingularity.net
(Stop comparing tasks for NUMA placement)
http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180907101139.20760-4-mgorman@techsingularity.net
To me, Kernel B which is the 13 patches accepted in v4.19-rc1 + 6 patches
posted for review seem to be giving better performance.
The numbers are compared to previous kernel i.e
for Kernel A, v4.18 is prev
for kernel B, Kernel A is prev
for Kernel C, B is prev
2 node x86 Haswell
v4.18 or 94710cac0ef4
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 203769
1 316734
Kernel A
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 203769 209790 2.95482
1 316734 312377 -1.3756
Kernel B
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 209790 202059 -3.68511
1 312377 326987 4.67704
Kernel C
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 202059 200681 -0.681979
1 326987 316715 -3.14141
================================================
4 Node / 2 Socket PowerNV / Power 8
v4.18 or 94710cac0ef4
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 88411.9
1 222075
Kernel A
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 88411.9 88733.5 0.363752
1 222075 214607 -3.36283
Kernel B
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 88733.5 89952 1.37321
1 214607 217226 1.22037
Kernel C
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 89952 89912.9 -0.0434676
1 217226 219281 0.946019
================================================
2 Node / 2 Socket Power 9 / PowerNV
v4.18 or 94710cac0ef4
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 195989
1 202854
Kernel A
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 195989 193108 -1.46998
1 202854 204042 0.585643
Kernel B
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 193108 196422 1.71614
1 204042 211219 3.51741
Kernel C
JVMS Prev Current %Change
4 196422 195052 -0.697478
1 211219 207854 -1.59313
================================================
4 Node / 4 Socket Power 7 PhyP LPAR.
v4.18 or 94710cac0ef4
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 52826.9
1 103103
Kernel A
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 52826.9 59504.4 12.6403
1 103103 102542 -0.544116
Kernel B
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 59504.4 61674.8 3.64746
1 102542 108211 5.52847
Kernel C
JVMS Prev Current %Change
8 61674.8 57946.5 -6.04509
1 108211 104533 -3.39892
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-12 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-07 10:11 [PATCH 0/4] Follow-up fixes for v4.19-rc1 NUMA balancing Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/numa: Remove redundant numa_stats nr_running field Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/numa: Remove unused calculations in update_numa_stats Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/numa: Stop comparing tasks for NUMA placement after selecting an idle core Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 13:05 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-07 14:20 ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/numa: Do not move imbalanced load purely on the basis of an idle CPU Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 11:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 12:37 ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 12:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 13:42 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-07 14:28 ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-10 9:41 ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-12 6:54 ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2018-09-12 9:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 10:45 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-12 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-09-12 10:27 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-12 10:57 ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-12 10:52 ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 11:24 ` [PATCH 0/4] Follow-up fixes for v4.19-rc1 NUMA balancing Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 12:29 ` Mel Gorman
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=20180912065410.GA5352@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.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).