[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1359301903.5805.11.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:51:43 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 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, 2013-01-27 at 21:25 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 06:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > 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.
...
> > 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?
>
> Maybe it is due to the lazy balancing on balance/powersaving. You can
> check the CS times in /proc/pid/status.
Well, it's not wakeup path, limiting entry frequency per waker did zip
squat nada to any policy throughput.
-Mike
--
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