From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>,
Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>,
Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>,
Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-E6
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:09:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <376170000.1044392941@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302041800280.12001-100000@localhost.localdomain>
> this is the -E6 patch, with most of the HT-unrelated tunings and leftover
> changes (noticed by Robert) removed. I kept the activation reorganization
> because that is important in the HT case as well.
>
> based on Erich's observations i also added AGRESSIVE_IDLE_STEAL, which
> defaults to 1 currently - could anyone try it with 0 on a NUMA box, how
> much of a difference does it make?
Passive aggressive results below - 16x NUMA-Q:
Summary: passive seems OK, though no better than current (for me).
Aggressive seems a little worse than current, though not too drastically.
--------------------------------------
Kernbench-2: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59-gcc3.2 45.86 563.63 119.58 1489.33
2.5.59-E6-agressive 46.09 564.41 120.19 1484.67
2.5.59-E6-passive 46.20 564.53 120.00 1481.33
Kernbench-16: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus)
Elapsed User System CPU
2.5.59-gcc3.2 47.15 567.41 143.72 1507.50
2.5.59-E6-agressive 47.58 567.42 146.40 1499.50
2.5.59-E6-passive 47.51 567.56 144.57 1498.33
DISCLAIMER: SPEC(tm) and the benchmark name SDET(tm) are registered
trademarks of the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. This
benchmarking was performed for research purposes only, and the run results
are non-compliant and not-comparable with any published results.
Results are shown as percentages of the first set displayed
SDET 1 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 5.2%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 93.5% 5.4%
2.5.59-E6-passive 104.2% 1.6%
SDET 2 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 7.1%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 100.9% 4.0%
2.5.59-E6-passive 102.8% 9.9%
SDET 4 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 5.3%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 105.3% 8.1%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.8% 7.2%
SDET 8 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 4.7%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 99.7% 2.9%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.2% 4.3%
SDET 16 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.8%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 97.8% 0.3%
2.5.59-E6-passive 98.4% 1.7%
SDET 32 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.6%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 100.3% 1.5%
2.5.59-E6-passive 99.6% 1.6%
SDET 64 (see disclaimer)
Throughput Std. Dev
2.5.59-gcc3.2 100.0% 1.1%
2.5.59-E6-agressive 99.8% 0.6%
2.5.59-E6-passive 99.4% 1.1%
NUMA schedbench 4:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 41.80 107.76 0.73
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 43.65 116.28 0.78
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 41.56 93.15 0.65
NUMA schedbench 8:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 38.00 229.83 2.11
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 60.41 298.63 1.91
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 41.76 250.80 1.80
NUMA schedbench 16:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 57.28 839.21 2.85
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 57.36 849.87 2.90
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 57.45 850.05 3.55
NUMA schedbench 32:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 118.44 1788.09 6.25
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 117.88 1796.30 6.13
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 116.91 1802.43 6.38
NUMA schedbench 64:
AvgUser Elapsed TotalUser TotalSys
2.5.59-gcc3.2 0.00 234.55 3633.76 15.02
2.5.59-E6-agressive 0.00 233.69 3614.37 14.53
2.5.59-E6-passive 0.00 236.53 3635.14 15.29
parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-04 21:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302041800280.12001-100000@localhost.localdomain>]
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=376170000.1044392941@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--cc=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ricklind@us.ibm.com \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.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