[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120223104959.GA8454@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:19:59 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible
* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> [2012-02-20 19:14:21]:
> > I was looking at this code due to vatsa wanting to do SD_BALANCE_WAKE.
>
> I really really need to find time to do systematic mainline testing.
>
> Enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE used to be decidedly too expensive to consider.
> Maybe that has changed, but I doubt it. (general aside: testing with a
> bloated distro config is a big mistake)
I am seeing 2.6% _improvement_ in volanomark score by enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE
at SMT/MC domains.
Machine : 2 Quad-core Intel X5570 CPU (H/T enabled)
Kernel : tip (HEAD at 6241cc8)
Java : OpenJDK 1.6.0_20
Volano : 2_9_0
Volano benchmark was run 4 times with and w/o SD_BALANCE_WAKE enabled in
SMT/MC domains.
Average score std. dev
SD_BALANCE_WAKE disabled 369459.750 4825.046
SD_BALANCE_WAKE enabled 379070.500 379070.5
I am going to try pipe benchmark next. Do you have suggestions for any other
benchmarks I should try to see the effect of SD_BALANCE_WAKE turned on in
SMT/MC domains?
- vatsa
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists