[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210125114623.GY3592@techsingularity.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:46:23 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:37:55PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > It's interesting that patch 3 would make any difference on x64 given that
> > it's SMT2. The scan depth should have been similar. It's somewhat expected
> > that it will not be a universal win, particularly once the utilisation
> > is high enough to spill over in sched domains (25%, 50%, 75% utilisation
> > being interesting on 4-socket systems). In such cases, double scanning can
> > still show improvements for workloads that idle rapidly like tbench and
> > hackbench even though it's expensive. The extra scanning gives more time
> > for a CPU to go idle enough to be selected which can improve throughput
> > but at the cost of wake-up latency,
>
> aha, sorry for the confusion. Since you and Vincent discussed to drop
> patch3, I just mentioned I tested 5 patches with patch3, not patch3 alone.
>
Ah, that makes more sense.
> >
> > Hopefully v4 can be tested as well which is now just a single scan.
> >
>
> Sure, may I know the baseline of v4?
>
5.11-rc4.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists