[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210201130603.GI3592@techsingularity.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 13:06:03 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Scan for an idle sibling in a single pass
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:13:16AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > Peter's series tried to solve three problems at once, this subset addresses
> > one problem.
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 151 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > kernel/sched/features.h | 1 -
> > 2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
> >
>
> 4 benchmarks measured on a x86 4s system with 24 cores per socket and
> 2 HTs per core, total 192 CPUs.
>
> The load level is [25%, 50%, 75%, 100%].
>
> - hackbench almost has a universal win.
> - netperf high load has notable changes, as well as tbench 50% load.
>
Ok, both netperf and tbench are somewhat expected as at those loads are
rapidly idling. Previously I observed that rapidly idling loads can
allow the has_idle_cores test pass for short durations and the double
scanning means there is a greater chance of finding an idle CPU over the
two passes. I think overall it's better to avoid double scanning even if
there are counter examples as it's possible we'll get that back through
better depth selection in the future.
Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists