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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20190427142137.GA72051@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Apr 2019 16:21:37 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>
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


* Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com> wrote:

> 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.

But what we are really interested in are throughput numbers under these 
three kernel variants, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo