[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B8BF297AD5A53A4BAEDA7B4D54BB80C9B0DC@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:04:00 +0000
From: "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Fix select_idle_sibling() regression
in selecting an idle SMT sibling
> >
> > A little complex for the whole thing.
> > on 4 sockets EX machine, 3~5% hackbench thread regression due to 4dcfe
> > can be recovered by ab2789.
> >
> > But on 2 sockets SNB machine, 1024 clients loop netperf TCP-RR has about
> > 9% regression. and your patch seem recover 2~3%.
> >
> > And on a 2 sockets nhm, one of our private benchmark was impact much 20
> > +% regression. that benchmark just run 4 process, each of process open a
> > thread, and the thread tasks is to locate randomly pages and than read
> > from 4 times/write 1 time data into a page. The ab2789 commit seems no
> > help our benchmark.
In fact, since L1 cache, D-TLB is shared between SMT siblings, it is not every application can benefit from wakeup on different Cores.
>
> Ok. Can you please try couple of experiments with two kernels? Two
> kernels being the base kernel (prior to 4dcfe1025b513c2c) and the second
> kernel with the commit ab2789213d224202237292d78aaa0c386c7b28b2.
Testing started on impacted NHM and SND machines for benchmark netperf hackbench thread and our small case.
>
> One experiment with p-states turned off and the second experiment with
> c-states turned off.
>
> I suspect mostly deeper core c-states might be contributing to the
> behavior that you are seeing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists