[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 13:06:08 -0400
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <riel@...hat.com>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<morten.rasmussen@....com>, kernel-team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle
sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
On 07/07/2015 05:43 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 06:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:41 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>>> So the NO_WAKE_WIDE_IDLE results are very good, almost the same as the
>>> baseline with a slight regression at lower RPS and a slight improvement
>>> at high RPS.
>>
>> Good. I can likely drop the rest then (I like dinky, so do CPUs;). I'm
>> not real keen on the feature unless your numbers are really good, and
>> odds are that ain't gonna happen.
>
> More extensive testing in pedantic-man mode increased my confidence of
> that enough to sign off and ship the dirt simple version. Any further
> twiddles should grow their own wings if they want to fly anyway, the
> simplest form helps your real world load, as well as the not so real
> pgbench, my numbers for that below.
>
> virgin master, 2 socket box
> postgres@...sler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12 tps = 96233.854271 1.000
> clients 24 tps = 142234.686166 1.000
> clients 36 tps = 148433.534531 1.000
> clients 48 tps = 133105.634302 1.000
> clients 60 tps = 128903.080371 1.000
> clients 72 tps = 128591.821782 1.000
> clients 84 tps = 114445.967116 1.000
> clients 96 tps = 109803.557524 1.000 avg 125219.017 1.000
>
> V3 (KISS, below)
> postgres@...sler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12 tps = 120793.023637 1.255
> clients 24 tps = 144668.961468 1.017
> clients 36 tps = 156705.239251 1.055
> clients 48 tps = 152004.886893 1.141
> clients 60 tps = 138582.113864 1.075
> clients 72 tps = 136286.891104 1.059
> clients 84 tps = 137420.986043 1.200
> clients 96 tps = 135199.060242 1.231 avg 140207.645 1.119 1.000
>
> V2 NO_WAKE_WIDE_IDLE
> postgres@...sler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12 tps = 121821.966162 1.265
> clients 24 tps = 146446.388366 1.029
> clients 36 tps = 151373.362190 1.019
> clients 48 tps = 156806.730746 1.178
> clients 60 tps = 133933.491567 1.039
> clients 72 tps = 131460.489424 1.022
> clients 84 tps = 130859.340261 1.143
> clients 96 tps = 130787.476584 1.191 avg 137936.155 1.101 0.983
>
> V2 WAKE_WIDE_IDLE (crawl in a hole feature, you're dead)
> postgres@...sler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12 tps = 121297.791570
> clients 24 tps = 145939.488312
> clients 36 tps = 155336.090263
> clients 48 tps = 149018.245323
> clients 60 tps = 136730.079391
> clients 72 tps = 134886.116831
> clients 84 tps = 130493.283398
> clients 96 tps = 126043.336074
>
>
> sched: beef up wake_wide()
>
> Josef Bacik reported that Facebook sees better performance with their
> 1:N load (1 dispatch/node, N workers/node) when carrying an old patch
> to try very hard to wake to an idle CPU. While looking at wake_wide(),
> I noticed that it doesn't pay attention to wakeup of the 1:N waker,
> returning 1 only when the 1:N waker is waking one of its minions.
>
> Correct that, and don't bother doing domain traversal when we know
> that all we need to do is check for an idle cpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Ok you can add
Tested-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
The new patch is the best across the board, there are no regressions and
about a 5% improvement for the bulk of the run (25 percentile and up).
Thanks for your help on this!
Josef
--
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