linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

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: <CAERHkruEAVBsh6FphMKqgR2+HjsVVegxjnpOFRNfbrfZDNpc9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Apr 2019 22:04:59 +0800
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > I have the same environment setup above, for nosmt cases, I used
> > /sys interface Thomas mentioned, below is the result:
> >
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 1/1      1.987( 1.97%)   2.043( 1.76%) -2.84% 1.985( 1.70%)  0.12%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 2/2      2.074( 1.16%)   2.057( 2.09%)  0.81% 2.072( 0.77%)  0.10%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 4/4      2.140( 0.00%)   2.138( 0.49%)  0.09% 2.137( 0.89%)  0.12%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 8/8      2.140( 0.00%)   2.144( 0.53%) -0.17% 2.140( 0.00%)  0.00%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 16/16    2.361( 2.99%)   2.369( 2.65%) -0.30% 2.406( 2.53%) -1.87%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 32/32    5.032( 8.68%)   3.485( 0.49%) 30.76% 6.002(27.21%) -19.27%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 64/64    7.577(34.35%)   3.972(23.18%) 47.57% 18.235(14.14%) -140.68%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 128/128 24.639(14.28%)  27.440( 8.24%) -11.37% 34.746( 6.92%) -41.02%
> > NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> > 256/256 38.797( 8.59%)  44.067(16.20%) -13.58% 42.536( 7.57%) -9.64%
>
> What do these numbers mean? Are these latencies, i.e. lower is better?

Yeah, like above setup, I run sysbench(Non-AVX task, NA) and gemmbench
(AVX512 task, AVX) in different level utilizatoin. The machine has 104 CPUs, so
nosmt has 52 CPUs.  These numbers are 95th percentile latency of sysbench,
lower is better.

Thanks,
-Aubrey