[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120223111929.GA23646@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:19:29 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * 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?
sysbench is one of the best ones punishing bad scheduler
balancing mistakes.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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