[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130127103508.GB8894@pd.tnic>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:35:09 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and
power awareness scheduling
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 05:36:25AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> With aim7 compute on 4 node 40 core box, I see stable throughput
> improvement at tasks = nr_cores and below w. balance and powersaving.
>
> 3.8.0-performance 3.8.0-balance 3.8.0-powersaving
> Tasks jobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu jobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu jobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
> 1 432.86 100 432.8571 14.00 3.99 433.48 100 433.4764 13.98 3.97 433.17 100 433.1665 13.99 3.98
> 1 437.23 100 437.2294 13.86 3.85 436.60 100 436.5994 13.88 3.86 435.66 100 435.6578 13.91 3.90
> 1 434.10 100 434.0974 13.96 3.95 436.29 100 436.2851 13.89 3.89 436.29 100 436.2851 13.89 3.87
> 5 2400.95 99 480.1902 12.62 12.49 2554.81 98 510.9612 11.86 7.55 2487.68 98 497.5369 12.18 8.22
> 5 2341.58 99 468.3153 12.94 13.95 2578.72 99 515.7447 11.75 7.25 2527.11 99 505.4212 11.99 7.90
> 5 2350.66 99 470.1319 12.89 13.66 2600.86 99 520.1717 11.65 7.09 2508.28 98 501.6556 12.08 8.24
> 10 4291.78 99 429.1785 14.12 40.14 5334.51 99 533.4507 11.36 11.13 5183.92 98 518.3918 11.69 12.15
> 10 4334.76 99 433.4764 13.98 38.70 5311.13 99 531.1131 11.41 11.23 5215.15 99 521.5146 11.62 12.53
> 10 4273.62 99 427.3625 14.18 40.29 5287.96 99 528.7958 11.46 11.46 5144.31 98 514.4312 11.78 12.32
> 20 8487.39 94 424.3697 14.28 63.14 10594.41 99 529.7203 11.44 23.72 10575.92 99 528.7958 11.46 22.08
> 20 8387.54 97 419.3772 14.45 77.01 10575.92 98 528.7958 11.46 23.41 10520.83 99 526.0417 11.52 21.88
> 20 8713.16 95 435.6578 13.91 55.10 10659.63 99 532.9815 11.37 24.17 10539.13 99 526.9565 11.50 22.13
> 40 16786.70 99 419.6676 14.44 170.08 19469.88 98 486.7470 12.45 60.78 19967.05 98 499.1763 12.14 51.40
> 40 16728.78 99 418.2195 14.49 172.96 19627.53 98 490.6883 12.35 65.26 20386.88 98 509.6720 11.89 46.91
> 40 16763.49 99 419.0871 14.46 171.42 20033.06 98 500.8264 12.10 51.44 20682.59 98 517.0648 11.72 42.45
Ok, this is sick. How is balance and powersaving better than perf? Both
have much more jobs per minute than perf; is that because we do pack
much more tasks per cpu with balance and powersaving?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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