Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:17:51 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.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>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.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 v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:54:01PM +0800 Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:37:15AM -0400 Julien Desfossez wrote:
> > > We tested both Aaron's and Tim's patches and here are our results.
> > > 
> > > Test setup:
> > > - 2 1-thread sysbench, one running the cpu benchmark, the other one the
> > >   mem benchmark
> > > - both started at the same time
> > > - both are pinned on the same core (2 hardware threads)
> > > - 10 30-seconds runs
> > > - test script: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/834cf45c
> > > - only showing the CPU events/sec (higher is better)
> > > - tested 4 tag configurations:
> > >   - no tag
> > >   - sysbench mem untagged, sysbench cpu tagged
> > >   - sysbench mem tagged, sysbench cpu untagged
> > >   - both tagged with a different tag
> > > - "Alone" is the sysbench CPU running alone on the core, no tag
> > > - "nosmt" is both sysbench pinned on the same hardware thread, no tag
> > > - "Tim's full patchset + sched" is an experiment with Tim's patchset
> > >   combined with Aaron's "hack patch" to get rid of the remaining deep
> > >   idle cases
> > > - In all test cases, both tasks can run simultaneously (which was not
> > >   the case without those patches), but the standard deviation is a
> > >   pretty good indicator of the fairness/consistency.
> > > 
> > > No tag
> > > ------
> > > Test                            Average     Stdev
> > > Alone                           1306.90     0.94
> > > nosmt                           649.95      1.44
> > > Aaron's full patchset:          828.15      32.45
> > > Aaron's first 2 patches:        832.12      36.53
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        864.21      3.68
> > > Tim's full patchset:            852.50      4.11
> > > Tim's full patchset + sched:    852.59      8.25
> > > 
> > > Sysbench mem untagged, sysbench cpu tagged
> > > ------------------------------------------
> > > Test                            Average     Stdev
> > > Alone                           1306.90     0.94
> > > nosmt                           649.95      1.44
> > > Aaron's full patchset:          586.06      1.77
> > > Aaron's first 2 patches:        630.08      47.30
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        1086.65     246.54
> > > Tim's full patchset:            852.50      4.11
> > > Tim's full patchset + sched:    390.49      15.76
> > > 
> > > Sysbench mem tagged, sysbench cpu untagged
> > > ------------------------------------------
> > > Test                            Average     Stdev
> > > Alone                           1306.90     0.94
> > > nosmt                           649.95      1.44
> > > Aaron's full patchset:          583.77      3.52
> > > Aaron's first 2 patches:        513.63      63.09
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        1171.23     3.35
> > > Tim's full patchset:            564.04      58.05
> > > Tim's full patchset + sched:    1026.16     49.43
> > > 
> > > Both sysbench tagged
> > > --------------------
> > > Test                            Average     Stdev
> > > Alone                           1306.90     0.94
> > > nosmt                           649.95      1.44
> > > Aaron's full patchset:          582.15      3.75
> > > Aaron's first 2 patches:        561.07      91.61
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        638.49      231.06
> > > Tim's full patchset:            679.43      70.07
> > > Tim's full patchset + sched:    664.34      210.14
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but with only 2 processes 
> > of interest shouldn't one tagged and one untagged be about the same
> > as both tagged?  
> 
> It should.
> 
> > In both cases the 2 sysbenches should not be running on the core at 
> > the same time. 
> 
> Agree.
> 
> > There will be times when oher non-related threads could share the core
> > with the untagged one. Is that enough to account for this difference?
> 
> What difference do you mean?


I was looking at the above posted numbers. For example:

> > > Sysbench mem untagged, sysbench cpu tagged
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        1086.65     246.54

> > > Sysbench mem tagged, sysbench cpu untagged
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        1171.23     3.35

> > > Both sysbench tagged
> > > Aaron's 3rd patch alone:        638.49      231.06


Admittedly, there's some high variance on some of those numbers. 


Cheers,
Phil

> 
> Thanks,
> Aaron
> 
> > > So in terms of fairness, Aaron's full patchset is the most consistent, but only
> > > Tim's patchset performs better than nosmt in some conditions.
> > > 
> > > Of course, this is one of the worst case scenario, as soon as we have
> > > multithreaded applications on overcommitted systems, core scheduling performs
> > > better than nosmt.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Julien
> > 
> > -- 

-- 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists