linux-kernel - Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:49:42 +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 Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:19 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: 
> On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9,
> >> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads
> >> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear
> >> performance change found.
> > 
> > Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is
> > there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions
> > with the bunch of benchmarks.
> > 
> >> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark,
> >> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever
> >> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving
> >> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change.
> > 
> > I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit
> > when saving power...
> > 
> 
> BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master.
> The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy.
> The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical.

That makes sense.  How the numa scheduling numbers compare to mainline?
Do you have all three available, mainline, and tip w. w/o powersaving
policy?

-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/