linux-kernel - Re: [patch v3 0/8] sched: use runnable avg in load balance

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:	Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:46:23 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC:	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
	pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	len.brown@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
	clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
	keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch v3 0/8] sched: use runnable avg in load balance

On 04/02/2013 04:35 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The reason may caused by wake_affine()'s higher overhead, and pgbench is
>> really sensitive to this stuff...
> 
> Thanks for testing. Could you like to remove the last patch and test it
> again? I want to know if the last patch has effect on pgbench.

Done, here the results of pgbench without the last patch on my box:

| db_size | clients |  tps  |   |  tps  |
+---------+---------+-------+   +-------+
| 22 MB   |       1 | 10662 |   | 10679 |
| 22 MB   |       2 | 21483 |   | 21471 |
| 22 MB   |       4 | 42046 |   | 41957 |
| 22 MB   |       8 | 55807 |   | 55684 |
| 22 MB   |      12 | 50768 |   | 52074 |
| 22 MB   |      16 | 49880 |   | 52879 |
| 22 MB   |      24 | 45904 |   | 53406 |
| 22 MB   |      32 | 43420 |   | 54088 |	+24.57%
| 7484 MB |       1 |  7965 |   |  7725 |
| 7484 MB |       2 | 19354 |   | 19405 |
| 7484 MB |       4 | 37552 |   | 37246 |
| 7484 MB |       8 | 48655 |   | 50613 |
| 7484 MB |      12 | 45778 |   | 47639 |
| 7484 MB |      16 | 45659 |   | 48707 |
| 7484 MB |      24 | 42192 |   | 46469 |
| 7484 MB |      32 | 36385 |   | 46346 |	+27.38%
| 15 GB   |       1 |  7677 |   |  7727 |
| 15 GB   |       2 | 19227 |   | 19199 |
| 15 GB   |       4 | 37335 |   | 37372 |
| 15 GB   |       8 | 48130 |   | 50333 |
| 15 GB   |      12 | 45393 |   | 47590 |
| 15 GB   |      16 | 45110 |   | 48091 |
| 15 GB   |      24 | 41415 |   | 47415 |
| 15 GB   |      32 | 35988 |   | 45749 |	+27.12%

Very nice improvement, I'd like to test it with the wake-affine throttle
patch later, let's see what will happen ;-)

Any idea on why the last one caused the regression?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 

--
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/