Message-ID: <20190806145528.GB20858@pauld.bos.csb>
Date:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:55:28 -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 10:41:25PM +0800 Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 2019/8/6 22:17, Phil Auld wrote:
> > 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. 
> 
> The high variance suggests the code having some fairness issues :-)
> 
> For the test here, I didn't expect the 3rd patch being used alone
> since the fairness is solved by patch2 and patch3 together.

Makes sense, thanks.


-- 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists