From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE65F1ACED3 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742982172; cv=none; b=iKqJeUdVeIh3yVQHHg7QfIxfpV5lgo+4hSA7S/g1Kkv4Jja5lDVe6w0vRSR8tKW1pYSDs5IpaUJeSZbEKiRR0boF700r3S/1x1HHAT6gDoayOOj81XAPDkK07plQE0YQOH7qww90VdMj3j8WxrW/MuJKOs0giZnOYnSKRgzPwiw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742982172; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0oKN0Fyy7TrhzBzexnKUaq4qDZJ/sXT1MYr7ulG9Qjk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BH/0CXpSG2jyM2wu64nn5+49Z1+4NimzJxgbu3kYmc/GHXtfboQx6ZWnYO7kPi1+I5SKt+dkBtgOCXNBc6PCTwpJLGsJQZfKI2MWgkYkoJrqnqxeRUit7FSqou/jm0NKFE+RwUYoJM4abbUAcEPFeYpOzVDcHf+C0qxlBCXYAYg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=BA2qqilB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="BA2qqilB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=0oKN0Fyy7TrhzBzexnKUaq4qDZJ/sXT1MYr7ulG9Qjk=; b=BA2qqilBfrOQj4gGiCb99bb13t 3d0vJCd7i6PlCuNE6XBFrx/6lcBxn6PI8y6DM7Ehi9cGQqQCW06ibRngewE7mUkpTEoH8FLXrQJJI Q6c87xAT8k7NNNnayPbRmWbm9SkBcRJs/cs2+zCzG/7mwWN4GtbZq7M/3YBz2PyONr96aiMoJLcYE Df32hztETts+KYccgPQt8jUSqyyNlkhavKtKsSv+nhasWFzCl1kRFU2T+MZ7MUBcn+ijo2MOK8rpr W4T2ZdEtzukWZlmcif4KJgfdkXAs2Jmn6U2T8ZeJQ7gBTA3iA0D9xNZC8vj1L3ZuloeqnSrKw6960 6opCki0g==; Received: from 77-249-17-252.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl ([77.249.17.252] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.98.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1txNHX-0000000HKsa-1EcS; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:42:43 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D88E83004AF; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:42:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 10:42:42 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Chen, Yu C" Cc: K Prateek Nayak , juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com, gautham.shenoy@amd.com, mingo@kernel.org, yu.chen.surf@foxmail.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Cache aware load-balancing Message-ID: <20250326094242.GD25239@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20250325120952.GJ36322@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <4cd8ba54-8b9e-4563-8fbc-1d6cd6699e81@intel.com> <20250325184429.GA31413@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <17d0e2be-6130-496f-9a80-49a67a749d01@amd.com> <78508c06-e552-4022-8a4e-f777c15c7a90@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <78508c06-e552-4022-8a4e-f777c15c7a90@intel.com> On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 05:15:24PM +0800, Chen, Yu C wrote: > Thanks for running the test. I think hackbenc/schbench would be the good > benchmarks to start with. I remember that you and Gautham mentioned that > schbench prefers to be aggregated in a single LLC in LPC2021 or 2022. I ran > a schbench test using mmtests on a Xeon server which has 4 NUMA nodes. Each > node has 80 cores (with SMT disabled). The numa=off option was appended to > the boot commandline, so there are 4 "LLCs" within each node. We really should look at getting the SnC topology even without SnC being in use. The sheer size of these LLCs is untenable.