linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

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:	Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:36:47 -0700
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 10:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Davidlohr
> 
> Thanks for the testing :)
> 
> On 07/09/2013 02:59 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> OK, I'll apply the patches, we'll see what happens. If there significant
> >> fallout we'll immediately have more information anyway ;-)
> > 
> > So I gave the v2 a spin on my aim7 benchmark on an 80-core 8 socket
> > DL980. Not much changed, most numbers are in the noise range, however,
> > with HT off, the high_systime workload suffered in throughput with this
> > patch with higher concurrency (after 600 users). Image attached.
> 
> To make sure I'm not on the wrong way... HT here means hyperthreading,
> correct?

Yep :)

> 
> I have some questions like:
> 1. how do you disable the hyperthreading? by manual or some other way?

Manually, from the BIOS.

> 2. is the 3.10-rc5 in image also disabled the hyperthreading?

Yes, I happened to have data already collected for 3.10-rc5. While the
runs with this patch was with -rc7, unless there was some performance
related commit I missed, I don't think the performance difference was
because of that.

> 3. is the v3 patch set show the same issue?

Uhmmm shoot, I didn't realize there was a v3, sorry about that.

/me takes another look at the thread.

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
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/