From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
athorlton@sgi.com, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
chegu_vinod@hp.com, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Idle power fix regresses ebizzy performance (was 3.12-stable backport of NUMA balancing patches)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:38:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140110143842.GC27046@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140110102617.GX27046@suse.de>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:26:17AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Also, can you try this attached incremental patch to see if it helps?
>
> I'll fire it up after pushing send on this mail.
>
Relevant parts of the mmtests config file used
export MMTESTS="ebizzy"
export EBIZZY_MAX_THREADS=$((NUM_CPU*2))
export EBIZZY_DURATION=10
export EBIZZY_ITERATIONS=10
Three kernels tested -- vanilla kernel, fixidle is your patch and revert is a
revert of 40e2d7f9b5dae048789c64672bf3027fbb663ffa
ebizzy
3.13.0-rc7 3.13.0-rc7 3.13.0-rc7
vanilla fixidle-v1r1 revert-v1r1
Mean 1 3153.70 ( 0.00%) 3271.40 ( 3.73%) 3170.40 ( 0.53%)
Mean 2 1725.90 ( 0.00%) 1714.90 ( -0.64%) 2366.90 ( 37.14%)
Mean 3 1659.70 ( 0.00%) 1654.30 ( -0.33%) 2301.10 ( 38.65%)
Mean 4 1636.10 ( 0.00%) 1638.20 ( 0.13%) 2287.30 ( 39.80%)
Mean 5 1586.90 ( 0.00%) 1598.80 ( 0.75%) 2312.10 ( 45.70%)
Mean 6 1544.00 ( 0.00%) 1555.00 ( 0.71%) 2264.00 ( 46.63%)
Mean 7 1543.10 ( 0.00%) 1543.70 ( 0.04%) 2296.50 ( 48.82%)
Mean 8 1541.70 ( 0.00%) 1548.40 ( 0.43%) 2284.70 ( 48.19%)
Mean 12 1542.50 ( 0.00%) 1550.80 ( 0.54%) 2268.20 ( 47.05%)
Mean 16 1543.00 ( 0.00%) 1546.10 ( 0.20%) 2261.70 ( 46.58%)
Mean 20 1541.60 ( 0.00%) 1551.20 ( 0.62%) 2262.60 ( 46.77%)
Mean 24 1548.00 ( 0.00%) 1546.20 ( -0.12%) 2240.30 ( 44.72%)
Mean 28 1537.00 ( 0.00%) 1544.20 ( 0.47%) 2172.40 ( 41.34%)
Mean 32 1542.70 ( 0.00%) 1552.70 ( 0.65%) 2118.80 ( 37.34%)
Mean 36 1538.70 ( 0.00%) 1548.80 ( 0.66%) 2074.40 ( 34.82%)
Mean 40 1536.40 ( 0.00%) 1539.90 ( 0.23%) 2041.20 ( 32.86%)
Mean 44 1535.00 ( 0.00%) 1542.90 ( 0.51%) 2011.60 ( 31.05%)
Mean 48 1534.90 ( 0.00%) 1544.00 ( 0.59%) 2002.60 ( 30.47%)
Mean 52 1530.40 ( 0.00%) 1531.90 ( 0.10%) 1994.80 ( 30.35%)
Mean 56 1531.50 ( 0.00%) 1527.10 ( -0.29%) 1980.90 ( 29.34%)
Mean 60 1528.90 ( 0.00%) 1527.40 ( -0.10%) 1995.60 ( 30.53%)
Mean 64 1527.10 ( 0.00%) 1526.50 ( -0.04%) 1985.50 ( 30.02%)
Mean 68 1527.80 ( 0.00%) 1522.50 ( -0.35%) 1983.70 ( 29.84%)
Mean 72 1524.50 ( 0.00%) 1523.50 ( -0.07%) 1976.70 ( 29.66%)
Mean 76 1520.80 ( 0.00%) 1525.20 ( 0.29%) 1964.10 ( 29.15%)
Mean 80 1522.30 ( 0.00%) 1519.30 ( -0.20%) 1966.20 ( 29.16%)
Mean 84 1522.60 ( 0.00%) 1520.00 ( -0.17%) 1948.30 ( 27.96%)
Mean 88 1521.40 ( 0.00%) 1521.40 ( 0.00%) 1949.00 ( 28.11%)
Mean 92 1515.80 ( 0.00%) 1517.10 ( 0.09%) 1938.00 ( 27.85%)
Mean 96 1516.00 ( 0.00%) 1517.40 ( 0.09%) 1930.50 ( 27.34%)
The latest patch makes little difference. Reverting makes a massive
difference. I didn't include the standard deviations but they are very
small and the performance gain from the revert is far outside the noise.
ebizzy Thread spread
3.13.0-rc7 3.13.0-rc7 3.13.0-rc7
vanilla fixidle-v1r1 revert-v1r1
Mean 1 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
Mean 2 39.80 ( 0.00%) 203.40 (-411.06%) 0.10 ( 99.75%)
Mean 3 90.90 ( 0.00%) 70.10 ( 22.88%) 0.30 ( 99.67%)
Mean 4 83.00 ( 0.00%) 79.30 ( 4.46%) 0.30 ( 99.64%)
Mean 5 16.20 ( 0.00%) 37.90 (-133.95%) 0.40 ( 97.53%)
Mean 6 54.40 ( 0.00%) 45.40 ( 16.54%) 0.50 ( 99.08%)
Mean 7 45.90 ( 0.00%) 37.90 ( 17.43%) 0.30 ( 99.35%)
Mean 8 36.30 ( 0.00%) 43.90 (-20.94%) 0.50 ( 98.62%)
Mean 12 31.80 ( 0.00%) 29.80 ( 6.29%) 0.60 ( 98.11%)
Mean 16 26.20 ( 0.00%) 26.70 ( -1.91%) 0.70 ( 97.33%)
Mean 20 20.70 ( 0.00%) 19.00 ( 8.21%) 1.00 ( 95.17%)
Mean 24 20.10 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( 10.45%) 1.40 ( 93.03%)
Mean 28 17.50 ( 0.00%) 15.80 ( 9.71%) 3.50 ( 80.00%)
Mean 32 15.50 ( 0.00%) 16.20 ( -4.52%) 4.20 ( 72.90%)
Mean 36 14.60 ( 0.00%) 14.60 ( 0.00%) 3.80 ( 73.97%)
Mean 40 13.40 ( 0.00%) 12.50 ( 6.72%) 3.70 ( 72.39%)
Mean 44 12.20 ( 0.00%) 13.50 (-10.66%) 3.20 ( 73.77%)
Mean 48 11.80 ( 0.00%) 13.00 (-10.17%) 2.70 ( 77.12%)
Mean 52 11.10 ( 0.00%) 11.20 ( -0.90%) 2.60 ( 76.58%)
Mean 56 10.00 ( 0.00%) 10.50 ( -5.00%) 2.10 ( 79.00%)
Mean 60 10.00 ( 0.00%) 10.00 ( 0.00%) 2.30 ( 77.00%)
Mean 64 9.30 ( 0.00%) 9.30 ( 0.00%) 2.60 ( 72.04%)
Mean 68 9.80 ( 0.00%) 9.70 ( 1.02%) 2.00 ( 79.59%)
Mean 72 9.80 ( 0.00%) 9.00 ( 8.16%) 2.00 ( 79.59%)
Mean 76 8.80 ( 0.00%) 9.60 ( -9.09%) 2.00 ( 77.27%)
Mean 80 8.20 ( 0.00%) 8.40 ( -2.44%) 2.00 ( 75.61%)
Mean 84 8.30 ( 0.00%) 8.00 ( 3.61%) 2.10 ( 74.70%)
Mean 88 8.20 ( 0.00%) 7.90 ( 3.66%) 2.00 ( 75.61%)
Mean 92 8.40 ( 0.00%) 7.50 ( 10.71%) 1.90 ( 77.38%)
Mean 96 8.10 ( 0.00%) 7.60 ( 6.17%) 2.20 ( 72.84%)
This shows the difference in performance between threads. It's
interesting to note that reverting the patch gives almost equal
performance to each thread
It's worth noting that automatic NUMA balancing is enabled and active
during these tests which would be one large potential difference between
our configs. I do not think it would be enough to explain the large
performance differences though.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-10 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1389103248-17617-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
[not found] ` <20140107141715.GA32491@kroah.com>
[not found] ` <20140107185440.GA7844@kroah.com>
[not found] ` <20140107203012.GA27046@suse.de>
[not found] ` <20140108104340.GC27046@suse.de>
2014-01-08 13:48 ` Idle power fix regresses ebizzy performance (was 3.12-stable backport of NUMA balancing patches) Mel Gorman
2014-01-09 4:17 ` Greg KH
2014-01-09 20:07 ` Len Brown
2014-01-10 10:14 ` Mel Gorman
[not found] ` <CAJvTdK=vJxYgtLOYZZPrwGNgYQrFVeCq18RwzEfh5n_tZyeP9g@mail.gmail.com>
2014-01-10 10:26 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-10 14:38 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2014-01-13 19:24 ` Mel Gorman
2014-01-13 21:12 ` Greg KH
2014-01-14 7:31 ` Len Brown
2014-01-14 8:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-01-14 8:24 ` Mike Galbraith
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=20140110143842.GC27046@suse.de \
--to=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).