linux-kernel - Re: sched: Consequences of integrating the Per Entity Load Tracking Metric into the Load Balancer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:32:35 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
	Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
	Lists linaro-dev <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: sched: Consequences of integrating the Per Entity Load Tracking
 Metric into the Load Balancer

On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 09:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> I still have a 2.6-rt problem I need to find time to squabble with, but
> maybe I'll soonish see if what you did plus what I did combined works
> out on that 4x10 core box where current is _so_ unbelievably horrible.
> Heck, it can't get any worse, and the restricted wake balance alone
> kinda sorta worked.

Actually, I flunked copy/paste 101.  Below (preeti) shows the real deal.

tbench, 3 runs, 30 secs/run
revert = 37407ea7 reverted
clients                     1          5         10        20         40         80
3.6.0.virgin            27.83     139.50    1488.76   4172.93    6983.71    8301.73
                        29.23     139.98    1500.22   4162.92    6907.16    8231.13
                        30.00     141.43    1500.09   3975.50    6847.24    7983.98

3.6.0+revert           281.08    1404.76    2802.44   5019.49    7080.97    8592.80
                       282.38    1375.70    2747.23   4823.95    7052.15    8508.45
                       270.69    1375.53    2736.29   5243.05    7058.75    8806.72

3.6.0+preeti            26.43     126.62    1027.23   3350.06    7004.22    7561.83
                        26.67     128.66     922.57   3341.73    7045.05    7662.18
                        25.54     129.20    1015.02   3337.60    6591.32    7634.33

3.6.0+best_combined    280.48    1382.07    2730.27   4786.20    6477.28    7980.07
                       276.88    1392.50    2708.23   4741.25    6590.99    7992.11
                       278.92    1368.55    2735.49   4614.99    6573.38    7921.75

3.0.51-0.7.9-default   286.44    1415.37    2794.41   5284.39    7282.57   13670.80

Something is either wrong with 3.6 itself, or the config I'm using, as
max throughput is nowhere near where it should be (see default).  On the
bright side, integrating the two does show some promise.

-Mike

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/