From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: <mingo@kernel.org>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
<dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>, <bristot@redhat.com>,
<corbet@lwn.net>, <qyousef@layalina.io>, <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
<patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>, <pjt@google.com>, <pavel@ucw.cz>,
<qperret@google.com>, <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
<joshdon@google.com>, <timj@gnu.org>, <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
<youssefesmat@chromium.org>, <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
<efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] sched/fair: Add lag based placement
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 23:42:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZDgi6g4hRYCfbxcu@chenyu5-mobl1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230405094720.GA4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 2023-04-05 at 11:47:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 05:18:06PM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> > On 2023-03-28 at 11:26:28 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So I launched the test on another platform with more CPUs,
baseline: 6.3-rc6
compare: sched/eevdf branch on top of commit 8c59a975d5ee ("sched/eevdf: Debug / validation crud")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schbench:mthreads = 2
baseline eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS
worker_threads
25% 80.00 +19.2% 95.40 schbench.latency_90%_us
(0.00%) (0.51%) stddev
50% 183.70 +2.2% 187.80 schbench.latency_90%_us
(0.35%) (0.46%) stddev
75% 4065 -21.4% 3193 schbench.latency_90%_us
(69.65%) (3.42%) stddev
100% 13696 -92.4% 1040 schbench.latency_90%_us
(5.25%) (69.03%) stddev
125% 16457 -78.6% 3514 schbench.latency_90%_us
(10.50%) (6.25%) stddev
150% 31177 -77.5% 7008 schbench.latency_90%_us
(6.84%) (5.19%) stddev
175% 40729 -75.1% 10160 schbench.latency_90%_us
(6.11%) (2.53%) stddev
200% 52224 -74.4% 13385 schbench.latency_90%_us
(10.42%) (1.72%) stddev
eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS eevdf+PLACE_BONUS
worker_threads
25% 96.30 +0.2% 96.50 schbench.latency_90%_us
(0.66%) (0.52%) stddev
50% 187.20 -3.0% 181.60 schbench.latency_90%_us
(0.21%) (0.71%) stddev
75% 3034 -84.1% 482.50 schbench.latency_90%_us
(5.56%) (27.40%) stddev
100% 648.20 +114.7% 1391 schbench.latency_90%_us
(64.70%) (10.05%) stddev
125% 3506 -3.0% 3400 schbench.latency_90%_us
(2.79%) (9.89%) stddev
150% 6793 +29.6% 8803 schbench.latency_90%_us
(1.39%) (7.30%) stddev
175% 9961 +9.2% 10876 schbench.latency_90%_us
(1.51%) (6.54%) stddev
200% 13660 +3.3% 14118 schbench.latency_90%_us
(1.38%) (6.02%) stddev
Summary for schbench: in most cases eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS gives the best performance.
And this is aligned with the previous test on another platform with smaller number of
CPUs, eevdf benefits schbench overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hackbench: ipc=pipe mode=process default fd:20
baseline eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS
worker_threads
1 103103 -0.3% 102794 hackbench.throughput_avg
25% 115562 +825.7% 1069725 hackbench.throughput_avg
50% 296514 +352.1% 1340414 hackbench.throughput_avg
75% 498059 +190.8% 1448156 hackbench.throughput_avg
100% 804560 +74.8% 1406413 hackbench.throughput_avg
eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS eevdf+PLACE_BONUS
worker_threads
1 102172 +1.5% 103661 hackbench.throughput_avg
25% 1076503 -52.8% 508612 hackbench.throughput_avg
50% 1394311 -68.2% 443251 hackbench.throughput_avg
75% 1476502 -70.2% 440391 hackbench.throughput_avg
100% 1512706 -76.2% 359741 hackbench.throughput_avg
Summary for hackbench pipe process test: in most cases eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS gives the best performance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unixbench: test=pipe
baseline eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS
nr_task
1 1405 -0.5% 1398 unixbench.score
25% 77942 +0.9% 78680 unixbench.score
50% 155384 +1.1% 157100 unixbench.score
75% 179756 +0.3% 180295 unixbench.score
100% 204030 -0.2% 203540 unixbench.score
125% 204972 -0.4% 204062 unixbench.score
150% 205891 -0.5% 204792 unixbench.score
175% 207051 -0.5% 206047 unixbench.score
200% 209387 -0.9% 207559 unixbench.score
eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS eevdf+PLACE_BONUS
nr_task
1 1405 -0.3% 1401 unixbench.score
25% 78640 +0.0% 78647 unixbench.score
50% 157153 -0.0% 157093 unixbench.score
75% 180152 +0.0% 180205 unixbench.score
100% 203479 -0.0% 203464 unixbench.score
125% 203866 +0.1% 204013 unixbench.score
150% 204872 -0.0% 204838 unixbench.score
175% 205799 +0.0% 205824 unixbench.score
200% 207152 +0.2% 207546 unixbench.score
Seems to have no impact on unixbench in pipe mode.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
netperf: TCP_RR, ipv4, loopback
baseline eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS
nr_threads
25% 56232 -1.7% 55265 netperf.Throughput_tps
50% 49876 -3.1% 48338 netperf.Throughput_tps
75% 24281 +1.9% 24741 netperf.Throughput_tps
100% 73598 +3.8% 76375 netperf.Throughput_tps
125% 59119 +1.4% 59968 netperf.Throughput_tps
150% 49124 +1.2% 49727 netperf.Throughput_tps
175% 41929 +0.2% 42004 netperf.Throughput_tps
200% 36543 +0.4% 36677 netperf.Throughput_tps
eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS eevdf+PLACE_BONUS
nr_threads
25% 55296 +4.7% 57877 netperf.Throughput_tps
50% 48659 +1.9% 49585 netperf.Throughput_tps
75% 24741 +0.3% 24807 netperf.Throughput_tps
100% 76455 +6.7% 81548 netperf.Throughput_tps
125% 60082 +7.6% 64622 netperf.Throughput_tps
150% 49618 +7.7% 53429 netperf.Throughput_tps
175% 41974 +7.6% 45160 netperf.Throughput_tps
200% 36677 +6.5% 39067 netperf.Throughput_tps
Seems to have no impact on netperf.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stress-ng: futex
baseline eevdf+NO_PLACE_BONUS
nr_threads
25% 207926 -21.0% 164356 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
50% 46611 -16.1% 39130 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
75% 71381 -11.3% 63283 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
100% 58766 -0.8% 58269 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
125% 59859 +11.3% 66645 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
150% 52869 +7.6% 56863 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
175% 49607 +22.9% 60969 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
200% 56011 +11.8% 62631 stress-ng.futex.ops_per_sec
When the system is not busy, there is regression. When the system gets busier,
there are some improvement. Even with PLACE_BONUS enabled, there are still regression.
Per the perf profile of 50% case, there are nearly the same ratio of wakeup with vs without
eevdf patch applied:
50.82 -0.7 50.15 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.futex_wake
but there are more preemption after eevdf enabled:
135095 +15.4% 155943 stress-ng.time.involuntary_context_switches
which is near the performance loss -16.1%
That is to say, eevdf help futex wakee grab the CPU easier(benefit latency), while might
have some impact on throughput?
thanks,
Chenyu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-13 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-28 9:26 [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 01/17] sched: Introduce latency-nice as a per-task attribute Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 02/17] sched/fair: Add latency_offset Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 03/17] sched/fair: Add sched group latency support Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 04/17] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 23:57 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-05 19:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 05/17] sched/fair: Remove START_DEBIT Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 06/17] sched/fair: Add lag based placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 9:18 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-05 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-06 3:03 ` Chen Yu
2023-04-13 15:42 ` Chen Yu [this message]
2023-04-13 15:55 ` Chen Yu
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 07/17] rbtree: Add rb_add_augmented_cached() helper Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 08/17] sched/fair: Implement an EEVDF like policy Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 1:26 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 18:48 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 18:54 ` Josh Don
2023-03-29 8:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 14:35 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-03-30 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-30 17:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-04-04 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 09/17] sched: Commit to lag based placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 10/17] sched/smp: Use lag to simplify cross-runqueue placement Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 11/17] sched: Commit to EEVDF Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 12/17] sched/debug: Rename min_granularity to base_slice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 13/17] sched: Merge latency_offset into slice Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 14/17] sched/eevdf: Better handle mixed slice length Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-31 15:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-04-04 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-04 13:50 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-04-05 5:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-04-05 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-05 20:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-04-14 11:18 ` Phil Auld
2023-04-16 5:10 ` Joel Fernandes
[not found] ` <20230401232355.336-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-02 2:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 15/17] [RFC] sched/eevdf: Sleeper bonus Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 9:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 16/17] [RFC] sched/eevdf: Minimal vavg option Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-28 9:26 ` [PATCH 17/17] [DEBUG] sched/eevdf: Debug / validation crud Peter Zijlstra
2023-04-03 7:42 ` [PATCH 00/17] sched: EEVDF using latency-nice Shrikanth Hegde
2023-04-10 3:13 ` David Vernet
2023-04-11 2:09 ` David Vernet
[not found] ` <20230410082307.1327-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-11 10:15 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <20230411133333.1790-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-11 14:56 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] ` <20230412025042.1413-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2023-04-12 4:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-04-25 12:32 ` Phil Auld
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=ZDgi6g4hRYCfbxcu@chenyu5-mobl1 \
--to=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=timj@gnu.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=youssefesmat@chromium.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