Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:17:01 +0800
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 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

On 2019/4/28 20:17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 5:33 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> So because I'm a big fan of presenting data in a readable fashion, here
>>> are your results, tabulated:
>>
>> I thought I tried my best to make it readable, but this one looks much better,
>> thanks, ;-)
>>>
>>>  #
>>>  # Sysbench throughput comparison of 3 different kernels at different
>>>  # load levels, higher numbers are better:
>>>  #
>>>
>>>  .--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------.
>>>  |  NA/AVX     vanilla-SMT    [stddev%] |coresched-SMT   [stddev%]   +/-  |   no-SMT    [stddev%]   +/-  |
>>>  |--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
>>>  |   1/1             508.5    [  0.2% ] |        504.7   [  1.1% ]   0.8% |    509.0    [  0.2% ]   0.1% |
>>>  |   2/2            1000.2    [  1.4% ] |       1004.1   [  1.6% ]   0.4% |    997.6    [  1.2% ]   0.3% |
>>>  |   4/4            1912.1    [  1.0% ] |       1904.2   [  1.1% ]   0.4% |   1914.9    [  1.3% ]   0.1% |
>>>  |   8/8            3753.5    [  0.3% ] |       3748.2   [  0.3% ]   0.1% |   3751.3    [  0.4% ]   0.1% |
>>>  |  16/16           7139.3    [  2.4% ] |       7137.9   [  1.8% ]   0.0% |   7049.2    [  2.4% ]   1.3% |
>>>  |  32/32          10899.0    [  4.2% ] |      10780.3   [  4.4% ]  -1.1% |  10339.2    [  9.6% ]  -5.1% |
>>>  |  64/64          15086.1    [ 11.5% ] |      14262.0   [  8.2% ]  -5.5% |  11168.7    [ 22.2% ] -26.0% |
>>>  | 128/128         15371.9    [ 22.0% ] |      14675.8   [ 14.4% ]  -4.5% |  10963.9    [ 18.5% ] -28.7% |
>>>  | 256/256         15990.8    [ 22.0% ] |      12227.9   [ 10.3% ] -23.5% |  10469.9    [ 19.6% ] -34.5% |
>>>  '--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------'
>>>
>>> One major thing that sticks out is that if we compare the stddev numbers
>>> to the +/- comparisons then it's pretty clear that the benchmarks are
>>> very noisy: in all but the last row stddev is actually higher than the
>>> measured effect.
>>>
>>> So what does 'stddev' mean here, exactly? The stddev of multipe runs,
>>> i.e. measured run-to-run variance? Or is it some internal metric of the
>>> benchmark?
>>>
>>
>> The benchmark periodically reports intermediate statistics in one second,
>> the raw log looks like below:
>> [ 11s ] thds: 256 eps: 14346.72 lat (ms,95%): 44.17
>> [ 12s ] thds: 256 eps: 14328.45 lat (ms,95%): 44.17
>> [ 13s ] thds: 256 eps: 13773.06 lat (ms,95%): 43.39
>> [ 14s ] thds: 256 eps: 13752.31 lat (ms,95%): 43.39
>> [ 15s ] thds: 256 eps: 15362.79 lat (ms,95%): 43.39
>> [ 16s ] thds: 256 eps: 26580.65 lat (ms,95%): 35.59
>> [ 17s ] thds: 256 eps: 15011.78 lat (ms,95%): 36.89
>> [ 18s ] thds: 256 eps: 15025.78 lat (ms,95%): 39.65
>> [ 19s ] thds: 256 eps: 15350.87 lat (ms,95%): 39.65
>> [ 20s ] thds: 256 eps: 15491.70 lat (ms,95%): 36.89
>>
>> I have a python script to parse eps(events per second) and lat(latency)
>> out, and compute the average and stddev. (And I can draw a curve locally).
>>
>> It's noisy indeed when tasks number is greater than the CPU number.
>> It's probably caused by high frequent load balance and context switch.
> 
> Ok, so it's basically an internal workload noise metric, it doesn't 
> represent the run-to-run noise.
> 
> So it's the real stddev of the workload - but we don't know whether the 
> measured performance figure is exactly in the middle of the runtime 
> probability distribution.
> 
>> Do you have any suggestions? Or any other information I can provide?
> 
> Yeah, so we don't just want to know the "standard deviation" of the 
> measured throughput values, but also the "standard error of the mean".
> 
> I suspect it's pretty low, below 1% for all rows?

Hope my this mail box works for this...

.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|NA/AVX vanilla-SMT     [std% / sem%] | coresched-SMT   [std% / sem%]     +/- |  no-SMT [std% / sem%]    +/-  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  1/1        508.5     [ 0.2%/ 0.0%] |         504.7   [ 1.1%/ 0.1%]    -0.8%|   509.0 [ 0.2%/ 0.0%]    0.1% |
|  2/2       1000.2     [ 1.4%/ 0.1%] |        1004.1   [ 1.6%/ 0.2%]     0.4%|   997.6 [ 1.2%/ 0.1%]   -0.3% |
|  4/4       1912.1     [ 1.0%/ 0.1%] |        1904.2   [ 1.1%/ 0.1%]    -0.4%|  1914.9 [ 1.3%/ 0.1%]    0.1% |
|  8/8       3753.5     [ 0.3%/ 0.0%] |        3748.2   [ 0.3%/ 0.0%]    -0.1%|  3751.3 [ 0.4%/ 0.0%]   -0.1% |
| 16/16      7139.3     [ 2.4%/ 0.2%] |        7137.9   [ 1.8%/ 0.2%]    -0.0%|  7049.2 [ 2.4%/ 0.2%]   -1.3% |
| 32/32     10899.0     [ 4.2%/ 0.4%] |       10780.3   [ 4.4%/ 0.4%]    -1.1%| 10339.2 [ 9.6%/ 0.9%]   -5.1% |
| 64/64     15086.1     [11.5%/ 1.2%] |       14262.0   [ 8.2%/ 0.8%]    -5.5%| 11168.7 [22.2%/ 1.7%]  -26.0% |
|128/128    15371.9     [22.0%/ 2.2%] |       14675.8   [14.4%/ 1.4%]    -4.5%| 10963.9 [18.5%/ 1.4%]  -28.7% |
|256/256    15990.8     [22.0%/ 2.2%] |       12227.9   [10.3%/ 1.0%]   -23.5%| 10469.9 [19.6%/ 1.7%]  -34.5% |
'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'

Thanks,
-Aubrey

Powered by blists - more mailing lists