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]

Message-ID: <510765F6.9040203@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:02:30 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	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, efault@....de, 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 01/28/2013 01:19 PM, 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.

Sorry, the testing configuration is unfair for this specjbb2005 results
here. I set JVM hard pin and use hugepage for peak performance.

When remove the hard pin and no hugepage, the balance/powersaving both
drop about 5% VS performance policy, and performance policy result is
similar with 3.8-rc5.

>>
>> 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.
> 


-- 
Thanks Alex
--
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/