public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Puhov <peter.puhov@linaro.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Robert Foley <robert.foley@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: update_pick_idlest() Select group with lowest group_util when idle_cpus are equal
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 14:20:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200702132058.GN3129@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <106350c5-c2b7-a63c-2b06-761f523ee67c@arm.com>

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:27:52AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 17/06/2020 16:52, Peter Puhov wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 06:50, Valentin Schneider
> > <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16/06/20 17:48, peter.puhov@linaro.org wrote:
> >>> From: Peter Puhov <peter.puhov@linaro.org>
> >>> We tested this patch with following benchmarks:
> >>>   perf bench -f simple sched pipe -l 4000000
> >>>   perf bench -f simple sched messaging -l 30000
> >>>   perf bench -f simple  mem memset -s 3GB -l 15 -f default
> >>>   perf bench -f simple futex wake -s -t 640 -w 1
> >>>   sysbench cpu --threads=8 --cpu-max-prime=10000 run
> >>>   sysbench memory --memory-access-mode=rnd --threads=8 run
> >>>   sysbench threads --threads=8 run
> >>>   sysbench mutex --mutex-num=1 --threads=8 run
> >>>   hackbench --loops 20000
> >>>   hackbench --pipe --threads --loops 20000
> >>>   hackbench --pipe --threads --loops 20000 --datasize 4096
> >>>
> >>> and found some performance improvements in:
> >>>   sysbench threads
> >>>   sysbench mutex
> >>>   perf bench futex wake
> >>> and no regressions in others.
> >>>
> >>
> >> One nitpick for the results of those: condensing them in a table form would
> >> make them more reader-friendly. Perhaps something like:
> >>
> >> | Benchmark        | Metric   | Lower is better? | BASELINE | SERIES | DELTA |
> >> |------------------+----------+------------------+----------+--------+-------|
> >> | Sysbench threads | # events | No               |    45526 |  56567 |  +24% |
> >> | Sysbench mutex   | ...      |                  |          |        |       |
> >>
> >> If you want to include more stats for each benchmark, you could have one table
> >> per (e.g. see [1]) - it'd still be a more readable form (or so I believe).
> 
> Wouldn't Unix Bench's 'execl' and 'spawn' be the ultimate test cases
> for those kind of changes?
> 
> I only see minor improvements with tip/sched/core as base on hikey620
> (Arm64 octa-core).
> 
> 				base		w/ patch
> ./Run spawn -c 8 -i 10		 633.6		 635.1
> 
> ./Run execl -c 8 -i 10		1187.5		1190.7	
> 
> 
> At the end of find_idlest_group(), when comparing local and idlest, it
> is explicitly mentioned that number of idle_cpus is used instead of
> utilization.
> The comparision between potential idle groups and local & idlest group
> should probably follow the same rules.
> 

There is the secondary hazard that what update_sd_pick_busiest returns
is checked later by find_busiest_group when considering the imbalance
between NUMA nodes. This particular patch splits basic communicating tasks
cross-node again at fork time so cross node communication is reintroduced
(same applies if sum_nr_running is used instead of group_util).

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-02 13:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-16 16:48 [PATCH] sched/fair: update_pick_idlest() Select group with lowest group_util when idle_cpus are equal peter.puhov
2020-06-17 10:50 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-06-17 14:52   ` Peter Puhov
2020-07-02  9:27     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-07-02 13:20       ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2020-07-02 13:45         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-07-01  9:19 ` [sched/fair] 0b9730e694: vm-scalability.throughput 7.7% improvement kernel test robot

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=20200702132058.GN3129@suse.de \
    --to=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peter.puhov@linaro.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robert.foley@linaro.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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