| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8a369b3c-58cd-84cb-d206-255dcc66e3e4@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 12:18:31 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: filter out overloaded cpus in SIS
Hello Abel,
We tested this patch on our systems.
tl;dr
- We observed some regressions in schbench with 128 workers in
NPS4 mode.
- tbench shows regression for 32 workers in NPS2 mode and 64 workers
in NPS2 and NPS4 mode.
- Great improvements in schbench for low worker count.
- Overall, the performance seems to be comparable to the tip.
Below are the detailed numbers for each benchmark.
On 5/5/2022 5:53 PM, Abel Wu wrote:
> Try to improve searching efficiency of SIS by filtering out the
> overloaded cpus, and as a result the more overloaded the system
> is, the less cpus will be searched.
>
> The overloaded cpus are tracked through LLC shared domain. To
> regulate accesses to the shared data, the update happens mainly
> at the tick. But in order to make it more accurate, we also take
> the task migrations into consideration during load balancing which
> can be quite frequent due to short running workload causing newly-
> idle. Since an overloaded runqueue requires at least 2 non-idle
> tasks runnable, we could have more faith on the "frequent newly-
> idle" case.
>
> Benchmark
> =========
>
> Tests are done in an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8260 CPU@...0GHz
> machine with 2 NUMA nodes each of which has 24 cores with SMT2
> enabled, so 96 CPUs in total.
>
> All of the benchmarks are done inside a normal cpu cgroup in a
> clean environment with cpu turbo disabled.
>
> Based on tip sched/core 089c02ae2771 (v5.18-rc1).
>
> Results
> =======
>
> hackbench-process-pipes
> vanilla filter
> Amean 1 0.2537 ( 0.00%) 0.2330 ( 8.15%)
> Amean 4 0.7090 ( 0.00%) 0.7440 * -4.94%*
> Amean 7 0.9153 ( 0.00%) 0.9040 ( 1.24%)
> Amean 12 1.1473 ( 0.00%) 1.0857 * 5.37%*
> Amean 21 2.7210 ( 0.00%) 2.2320 * 17.97%*
> Amean 30 4.8263 ( 0.00%) 3.6170 * 25.06%*
> Amean 48 7.4107 ( 0.00%) 6.1130 * 17.51%*
> Amean 79 9.2120 ( 0.00%) 8.2350 * 10.61%*
> Amean 110 10.1647 ( 0.00%) 8.8043 * 13.38%*
> Amean 141 11.5713 ( 0.00%) 10.5867 * 8.51%*
> Amean 172 13.7963 ( 0.00%) 12.8120 * 7.13%*
> Amean 203 15.9283 ( 0.00%) 14.8703 * 6.64%*
> Amean 234 17.8737 ( 0.00%) 17.1053 * 4.30%*
> Amean 265 19.8443 ( 0.00%) 18.7870 * 5.33%*
> Amean 296 22.4147 ( 0.00%) 21.3943 * 4.55%*
>
> There is a regression in 4-groups test in which case lots of busy
> cpus can be found in the system. The busy cpus are not recorded in
> the overloaded cpu mask, so we trade overhead for nothing in SIS.
> This is the worst case of this feature.
>
> hackbench-process-sockets
> vanilla filter
> Amean 1 0.5343 ( 0.00%) 0.5270 ( 1.37%)
> Amean 4 1.4500 ( 0.00%) 1.4273 * 1.56%*
> Amean 7 2.4813 ( 0.00%) 2.4383 * 1.73%*
> Amean 12 4.1357 ( 0.00%) 4.0827 * 1.28%*
> Amean 21 6.9707 ( 0.00%) 6.9290 ( 0.60%)
> Amean 30 9.8373 ( 0.00%) 9.6730 * 1.67%*
> Amean 48 15.6233 ( 0.00%) 15.3213 * 1.93%*
> Amean 79 26.2763 ( 0.00%) 25.3293 * 3.60%*
> Amean 110 36.6170 ( 0.00%) 35.8920 * 1.98%*
> Amean 141 47.0720 ( 0.00%) 45.8773 * 2.54%*
> Amean 172 57.0580 ( 0.00%) 56.1627 * 1.57%*
> Amean 203 67.2040 ( 0.00%) 66.4323 * 1.15%*
> Amean 234 77.8897 ( 0.00%) 76.6320 * 1.61%*
> Amean 265 88.0437 ( 0.00%) 87.1400 ( 1.03%)
> Amean 296 98.2387 ( 0.00%) 96.8633 * 1.40%*
>
> hackbench-thread-pipes
> vanilla filter
> Amean 1 0.2693 ( 0.00%) 0.2800 * -3.96%*
> Amean 4 0.7843 ( 0.00%) 0.7680 ( 2.08%)
> Amean 7 0.9287 ( 0.00%) 0.9217 ( 0.75%)
> Amean 12 1.4443 ( 0.00%) 1.3680 * 5.29%*
> Amean 21 3.5150 ( 0.00%) 3.1107 * 11.50%*
> Amean 30 6.3997 ( 0.00%) 5.2160 * 18.50%*
> Amean 48 8.4183 ( 0.00%) 7.8477 * 6.78%*
> Amean 79 10.0713 ( 0.00%) 9.2240 * 8.41%*
> Amean 110 10.9940 ( 0.00%) 10.1280 * 7.88%*
> Amean 141 13.6347 ( 0.00%) 11.9387 * 12.44%*
> Amean 172 15.0523 ( 0.00%) 14.4117 ( 4.26%)
> Amean 203 18.0710 ( 0.00%) 17.3533 ( 3.97%)
> Amean 234 19.7413 ( 0.00%) 19.8453 ( -0.53%)
> Amean 265 23.1820 ( 0.00%) 22.8223 ( 1.55%)
> Amean 296 25.3820 ( 0.00%) 24.2397 ( 4.50%)
>
> hackbench-thread-sockets
> vanilla filter
> Amean 1 0.5893 ( 0.00%) 0.5750 * 2.43%*
> Amean 4 1.4853 ( 0.00%) 1.4727 ( 0.85%)
> Amean 7 2.5353 ( 0.00%) 2.5047 * 1.21%*
> Amean 12 4.3003 ( 0.00%) 4.1910 * 2.54%*
> Amean 21 7.1930 ( 0.00%) 7.1533 ( 0.55%)
> Amean 30 10.0983 ( 0.00%) 9.9690 * 1.28%*
> Amean 48 15.9853 ( 0.00%) 15.6963 * 1.81%*
> Amean 79 26.7537 ( 0.00%) 25.9497 * 3.01%*
> Amean 110 37.3850 ( 0.00%) 36.6793 * 1.89%*
> Amean 141 47.7730 ( 0.00%) 47.0967 * 1.42%*
> Amean 172 58.4280 ( 0.00%) 57.5513 * 1.50%*
> Amean 203 69.3093 ( 0.00%) 67.7680 * 2.22%*
> Amean 234 80.0190 ( 0.00%) 78.2633 * 2.19%*
> Amean 265 90.7237 ( 0.00%) 89.1027 * 1.79%*
> Amean 296 101.1153 ( 0.00%) 99.2693 * 1.83%*
>
> schbench
> vanilla filter
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-1 5.00 ( 0.00%) 5.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-1 5.00 ( 0.00%) 5.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-1 5.00 ( 0.00%) 5.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-1 5.00 ( 0.00%) 5.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-1 6.00 ( 0.00%) 6.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-1 7.00 ( 0.00%) 6.00 ( 14.29%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-1 7.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-2 6.00 ( 0.00%) 6.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-2 7.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-2 7.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-2 7.00 ( 0.00%) 7.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-2 9.00 ( 0.00%) 8.00 ( 11.11%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-2 9.00 ( 0.00%) 9.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-2 12.00 ( 0.00%) 11.00 ( 8.33%)
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-4 8.00 ( 0.00%) 8.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-4 10.00 ( 0.00%) 10.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-4 10.00 ( 0.00%) 11.00 ( -10.00%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-4 11.00 ( 0.00%) 11.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-4 12.00 ( 0.00%) 13.00 ( -8.33%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-4 16.00 ( 0.00%) 14.00 ( 12.50%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-4 17.00 ( 0.00%) 15.00 ( 11.76%)
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-8 13.00 ( 0.00%) 13.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-8 16.00 ( 0.00%) 16.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-8 18.00 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-8 19.00 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( 5.26%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-8 24.00 ( 0.00%) 21.00 ( 12.50%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-8 28.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 7.14%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-8 33.00 ( 0.00%) 32.00 ( 3.03%)
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-16 20.00 ( 0.00%) 20.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-16 28.00 ( 0.00%) 28.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-16 32.00 ( 0.00%) 32.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-16 34.00 ( 0.00%) 34.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-16 40.00 ( 0.00%) 40.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-16 44.00 ( 0.00%) 44.00 ( 0.00%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-16 53.00 ( 0.00%) 67.00 ( -26.42%)
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-32 39.00 ( 0.00%) 36.00 ( 7.69%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-32 57.00 ( 0.00%) 52.00 ( 8.77%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-32 69.00 ( 0.00%) 61.00 ( 11.59%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-32 76.00 ( 0.00%) 64.00 ( 15.79%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-32 88.00 ( 0.00%) 74.00 ( 15.91%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-32 91.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 12.09%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-32 115.00 ( 0.00%) 107.00 ( 6.96%)
> Lat 50.0th-qrtle-47 63.00 ( 0.00%) 55.00 ( 12.70%)
> Lat 75.0th-qrtle-47 93.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 13.98%)
> Lat 90.0th-qrtle-47 116.00 ( 0.00%) 97.00 ( 16.38%)
> Lat 95.0th-qrtle-47 129.00 ( 0.00%) 106.00 ( 17.83%)
> Lat 99.0th-qrtle-47 148.00 ( 0.00%) 123.00 ( 16.89%)
> Lat 99.5th-qrtle-47 157.00 ( 0.00%) 132.00 ( 15.92%)
> Lat 99.9th-qrtle-47 387.00 ( 0.00%) 164.00 ( 57.62%)
>
> netperf-udp
> vanilla filter
> Hmean send-64 183.09 ( 0.00%) 182.28 ( -0.44%)
> Hmean send-128 364.68 ( 0.00%) 363.12 ( -0.43%)
> Hmean send-256 715.38 ( 0.00%) 716.57 ( 0.17%)
> Hmean send-1024 2764.76 ( 0.00%) 2779.17 ( 0.52%)
> Hmean send-2048 5282.93 ( 0.00%) 5220.41 * -1.18%*
> Hmean send-3312 8282.26 ( 0.00%) 8121.78 * -1.94%*
> Hmean send-4096 10108.12 ( 0.00%) 10042.98 ( -0.64%)
> Hmean send-8192 16868.49 ( 0.00%) 16826.99 ( -0.25%)
> Hmean send-16384 26230.44 ( 0.00%) 26271.85 ( 0.16%)
> Hmean recv-64 183.09 ( 0.00%) 182.28 ( -0.44%)
> Hmean recv-128 364.68 ( 0.00%) 363.12 ( -0.43%)
> Hmean recv-256 715.38 ( 0.00%) 716.57 ( 0.17%)
> Hmean recv-1024 2764.76 ( 0.00%) 2779.17 ( 0.52%)
> Hmean recv-2048 5282.93 ( 0.00%) 5220.39 * -1.18%*
> Hmean recv-3312 8282.26 ( 0.00%) 8121.78 * -1.94%*
> Hmean recv-4096 10108.12 ( 0.00%) 10042.97 ( -0.64%)
> Hmean recv-8192 16868.47 ( 0.00%) 16826.93 ( -0.25%)
> Hmean recv-16384 26230.44 ( 0.00%) 26271.75 ( 0.16%)
>
> The overhead this feature added to the scheduler can be unfriendly
> to the fast context-switching workloads like netperf/tbench. But
> the test result seems fine.
>
> netperf-tcp
> vanilla filter
> Hmean 64 863.35 ( 0.00%) 1176.11 * 36.23%*
> Hmean 128 1674.32 ( 0.00%) 2223.37 * 32.79%*
> Hmean 256 3151.03 ( 0.00%) 4109.64 * 30.42%*
> Hmean 1024 10281.94 ( 0.00%) 12799.28 * 24.48%*
> Hmean 2048 16906.05 ( 0.00%) 20129.91 * 19.07%*
> Hmean 3312 21246.21 ( 0.00%) 24747.24 * 16.48%*
> Hmean 4096 23690.57 ( 0.00%) 26596.35 * 12.27%*
> Hmean 8192 28758.29 ( 0.00%) 30423.10 * 5.79%*
> Hmean 16384 33071.06 ( 0.00%) 34262.39 * 3.60%*
>
> The suspicious improvement (and regression in tbench4-128) needs
> further digging..
>
> tbench4 Throughput
> vanilla filter
> Hmean 1 293.71 ( 0.00%) 298.89 * 1.76%*
> Hmean 2 583.25 ( 0.00%) 596.00 * 2.19%*
> Hmean 4 1162.40 ( 0.00%) 1176.73 * 1.23%*
> Hmean 8 2309.28 ( 0.00%) 2332.89 * 1.02%*
> Hmean 16 4517.23 ( 0.00%) 4587.60 * 1.56%*
> Hmean 32 7458.54 ( 0.00%) 7550.19 * 1.23%*
> Hmean 64 9041.62 ( 0.00%) 9192.69 * 1.67%*
> Hmean 128 19983.62 ( 0.00%) 12228.91 * -38.81%*
> Hmean 256 20054.12 ( 0.00%) 20997.33 * 4.70%*
> Hmean 384 19137.11 ( 0.00%) 20331.14 * 6.24%*
Following are the results from testing on a dual socket Zen3 system
(2 x 64C/128T) in different NPS modes.
Following is the NUMA configuration for each NPS mode on the system:
NPS1: Each socket is a NUMA node.
Total 2 NUMA nodes in the dual socket machine.
Node 0: 0-63, 128-191
Node 1: 64-127, 192-255
NPS2: Each socket is further logically divided into 2 NUMA regions.
Total 4 NUMA nodes exist over 2 socket.
Node 0: 0-31, 128-159
Node 1: 32-63, 160-191
Node 2: 64-95, 192-223
Node 3: 96-127, 223-255
NPS4: Each socket is logically divided into 4 NUMA regions.
Total 8 NUMA nodes exist over 2 socket.
Node 0: 0-15, 128-143
Node 1: 16-31, 144-159
Node 2: 32-47, 160-175
Node 3: 48-63, 176-191
Node 4: 64-79, 192-207
Node 5: 80-95, 208-223
Node 6: 96-111, 223-231
Node 7: 112-127, 232-255
Kernel versions:
- tip: 5.18-rc1 tip sched/core
- Filter Overloaded: 5.18-rc1 tip sched/core + this patch
When we began testing, we recorded the tip at:
commit: a658353167bf "sched/fair: Revise comment about lb decision matrix"
Following are the results from the benchmark:
Note: Results marked with * are data points of concern. A rerun
for the data point has been provided on both the tip and the
patched kernel to check for any run to run variation.
~~~~~~~~~
hackbench
~~~~~~~~~
NPS1
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
1-groups: 4.64 (0.00 pct) 4.74 (-2.15 pct)
2-groups: 5.38 (0.00 pct) 5.55 (-3.15 pct)
4-groups: 6.15 (0.00 pct) 6.20 (-0.81 pct)
8-groups: 7.42 (0.00 pct) 7.47 (-0.67 pct)
16-groups: 10.70 (0.00 pct) 10.60 (0.93 pct)
NPS2
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
1-groups: 4.70 (0.00 pct) 4.68 (0.42 pct)
2-groups: 5.45 (0.00 pct) 5.46 (-0.18 pct)
4-groups: 6.13 (0.00 pct) 6.11 (0.32 pct)
8-groups: 7.30 (0.00 pct) 7.23 (0.95 pct)
16-groups: 10.30 (0.00 pct) 10.38 (-0.77 pct)
NPS4
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
1-groups: 4.60 (0.00 pct) 4.66 (-1.30 pct)
2-groups: 5.41 (0.00 pct) 5.53 (-2.21 pct)
4-groups: 6.12 (0.00 pct) 6.16 (-0.65 pct)
8-groups: 7.22 (0.00 pct) 7.28 (-0.83 pct)
16-groups: 10.24 (0.00 pct) 10.26 (-0.19 pct)
~~~~~~~~
schbench
~~~~~~~~
NPS1
#workers: tip Filter Overloaded
1: 29.00 (0.00 pct) 29.00 (0.00 pct)
2: 28.00 (0.00 pct) 27.00 (3.57 pct)
4: 31.50 (0.00 pct) 33.00 (-4.76 pct)
8: 42.00 (0.00 pct) 42.50 (-1.19 pct)
16: 56.50 (0.00 pct) 56.00 (0.88 pct)
32: 94.50 (0.00 pct) 96.50 (-2.11 pct)
64: 176.00 (0.00 pct) 178.50 (-1.42 pct)
128: 404.00 (0.00 pct) 418.00 (-3.46 pct)
256: 869.00 (0.00 pct) 900.00 (-3.56 pct)
512: 58432.00 (0.00 pct) 56256.00 (3.72 pct)
NPS2
#workers: tip Filter Overloaded
1: 26.50 (0.00 pct) 14.00 (47.16 pct)
2: 26.50 (0.00 pct) 14.50 (45.28 pct)
4: 34.50 (0.00 pct) 18.00 (47.82 pct)
8: 45.00 (0.00 pct) 30.50 (32.22 pct)
16: 56.50 (0.00 pct) 57.00 (-0.88 pct)
32: 95.50 (0.00 pct) 94.00 (1.57 pct)
64: 179.00 (0.00 pct) 176.00 (1.67 pct)
128: 369.00 (0.00 pct) 411.00 (-11.38 pct) *
128: 400.60 (0.00 pct) 412.90 (-3.07 pct) [Verification Run]
256: 898.00 (0.00 pct) 850.00 (5.34 pct)
512: 56256.00 (0.00 pct) 59456.00 (-5.68 pct)
NPS4
#workers: tip Filter Overloaded
1: 25.00 (0.00 pct) 24.50 (2.00 pct)
2: 28.00 (0.00 pct) 24.00 (14.28 pct)
4: 29.50 (0.00 pct) 28.50 (3.38 pct)
8: 41.00 (0.00 pct) 36.50 (10.97 pct)
16: 65.50 (0.00 pct) 59.00 (9.92 pct)
32: 93.00 (0.00 pct) 95.50 (-2.68 pct)
64: 170.50 (0.00 pct) 182.00 (-6.74 pct) *
64: 175.00 (0.00 pct) 176.00 (-0.57 pct) [Verification Run]
128: 377.00 (0.00 pct) 409.50 (-8.62 pct) *
128: 372.00 (0.00 pct) 401.00 (-7.79 pct) [Verification Run]
256: 867.00 (0.00 pct) 940.00 (-8.41 pct) *
256: 925.00 (0.00 pct) 892.00 (+3.45 pct) [Verification Run]
512: 58048.00 (0.00 pct) 59456.00 (-2.42 pct)
~~~~~~
tbench
~~~~~~
NPS1
Clients: tip Filter Overloaded
1 443.31 (0.00 pct) 466.32 (5.19 pct)
2 877.32 (0.00 pct) 891.87 (1.65 pct)
4 1665.11 (0.00 pct) 1727.98 (3.77 pct)
8 3016.68 (0.00 pct) 3125.12 (3.59 pct)
16 5374.30 (0.00 pct) 5414.02 (0.73 pct)
32 8763.86 (0.00 pct) 8599.72 (-1.87 pct)
64 15786.93 (0.00 pct) 14095.47 (-10.71 pct) *
64 15441.33 (0.00 pct) 15148.00 (-1.89 pct) [Verification Run]
128 26826.08 (0.00 pct) 27837.07 (3.76 pct)
256 24207.35 (0.00 pct) 23769.48 (-1.80 pct)
512 51740.58 (0.00 pct) 53369.28 (3.14 pct)
1024 51177.82 (0.00 pct) 51928.06 (1.46 pct)
NPS2
Clients: tip Filter Overloaded
1 449.49 (0.00 pct) 464.65 (3.37 pct)
2 867.28 (0.00 pct) 898.85 (3.64 pct)
4 1643.60 (0.00 pct) 1691.53 (2.91 pct)
8 3047.35 (0.00 pct) 3010.65 (-1.20 pct)
16 5340.77 (0.00 pct) 5242.42 (-1.84 pct)
32 10536.85 (0.00 pct) 8978.74 (-14.78 pct) *
32 10417.46 /90.00 pct) 8375.55 (-19.60 pct) [Verification Run]
64 16543.23 (0.00 pct) 15357.35 (-7.16 pct) *
64 17101.56 (0.00 pct) 15465.73 (-9.56 pct) [Verification Run]
128 26400.40 (0.00 pct) 26637.87 (0.89 pct)
256 23436.75 (0.00 pct) 24324.08 (3.78 pct)
512 50902.60 (0.00 pct) 49159.14 (-3.42 pct)
1024 50216.10 (0.00 pct) 50218.74 (0.00 pct)
NPS4
Clients: tip Filter Overloaded
1 443.82 (0.00 pct) 458.65 (3.34 pct)
2 849.14 (0.00 pct) 883.79 (4.08 pct)
4 1603.26 (0.00 pct) 1658.89 (3.46 pct)
8 2972.37 (0.00 pct) 3087.76 (3.88 pct)
16 5277.13 (0.00 pct) 5472.11 (3.69 pct)
32 9744.73 (0.00 pct) 9666.67 (-0.80 pct)
64 15854.80 (0.00 pct) 13778.51 (-13.09 pct) *
64 15732.56 (0.00 pct) 14397.83 (-8.48 pct) [Verification Run]
128 26116.97 (0.00 pct) 25966.86 (-0.57 pct)
256 22403.25 (0.00 pct) 22634.04 (1.03 pct)
512 48317.20 (0.00 pct) 47123.73 (-2.47 pct)
1024 50445.41 (0.00 pct) 48934.56 (-2.99 pct)
Note: tbench resuts for 256 workers are known to have
a great amount of run to run variation on the test
machine. Any regression seen for the data point can
be safely ignored.
~~~~~~
Stream
~~~~~~
- 10 runs
NPS1
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
Copy: 189113.11 (0.00 pct) 184006.43 (-2.70 pct)
Scale: 201190.61 (0.00 pct) 197663.80 (-1.75 pct)
Add: 232654.21 (0.00 pct) 223226.88 (-4.05 pct)
Triad: 226583.57 (0.00 pct) 218920.27 (-3.38 pct)
NPS2
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
Copy: 155347.14 (0.00 pct) 150710.93 (-2.98 pct)
Scale: 191701.53 (0.00 pct) 181436.61 (-5.35 pct)
Add: 210013.97 (0.00 pct) 200397.89 (-4.57 pct)
Triad: 207602.00 (0.00 pct) 198247.25 (-4.50 pct)
NPS4
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
Copy: 136421.15 (0.00 pct) 137608.05 (0.87 pct)
Scale: 191217.59 (0.00 pct) 189674.77 (-0.80 pct)
Add: 189229.52 (0.00 pct) 188682.22 (-0.28 pct)
Triad: 188052.99 (0.00 pct) 188946.75 (0.47 pct)
- 100 runs
NPS1
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
Copy: 244693.32 (0.00 pct) 235089.48 (-3.92 pct)
Scale: 221874.99 (0.00 pct) 217716.94 (-1.87 pct)
Add: 268363.89 (0.00 pct) 266529.22 (-0.68 pct)
Triad: 260945.24 (0.00 pct) 252780.93 (-3.12 pct)
NPS2
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
Copy: 211262.00 (0.00 pct) 240922.15 (14.03 pct)
Scale: 222493.34 (0.00 pct) 220122.09 (-1.06 pct)
Add: 280277.17 (0.00 pct) 278002.19 (-0.81 pct)
Triad: 265860.49 (0.00 pct) 264231.43 (-0.61 pct)
NPS4
Test: tip Filter Overloaded
Copy: 250171.40 (0.00 pct) 243512.01 (-2.66 pct)
Scale: 222293.56 (0.00 pct) 224911.55 (1.17 pct)
Add: 279222.16 (0.00 pct) 280700.91 (0.52 pct)
Triad: 262013.92 (0.00 pct) 265729.44 (1.41 pct)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
ycsb-mongodb
~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPS1
sched-tip: 303718.33 (var: 1.31)
NUMA Bal: 309396.00 (var: 1.24) (+1.83%)
NPS2
sched-tip: 304536.33 (var: 2.46)
NUMA Bal: 305209.00 (var: 0.80) (+0.22%)
NPS4
sched-tip: 301192.33 (var: 1.81)
NUMA Bal: 304248.00 (var: 2.05) (+1.00%)
~~~~~
Notes
~~~~~
- schbench shows regression for 128 workers in NPS4 mode.
The rerun shows stable results for both tip and patched
kernel.
- tbench shows regression for 64 workers in NPS2 and NPS4
mode. In NPS2 mode, the tip shows some run to run variance
however the median of 10 runs reported is lower for the
patched kernel.
- tbench shows regression for 32 workers in NPS2 mode. The
tip seems to report stable values here but there is a
slight run to run variation observed in the patched kernel.
- Overall, the performance is comparable to that of the tip.
- schbench low worker count improvements has the load balancer
coming into the picture. We still have to do deeper analysis
to see if and how this patch is helping.
I haven't run the mmtest as a part of this testing. I've made
a note of the configs you ran the numbers for. I'll try to
get numbers for same.
>
> v3:
> - removed sched-idle balance feature and focus on SIS
> - take non-CFS tasks into consideration
> - several fixes/improvement suggested by Josh Don
>
> v2:
> - several optimizations on sched-idle balancing
> - ignore asym topos in can_migrate_task
> - add more benchmarks including SIS efficiency
> - re-organize patch as suggested by Mel
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220217154403.6497-5-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220409135104.3733193-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched/topology.h | 12 ++++++++++
> kernel/sched/core.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> kernel/sched/idle.c | 1 +
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 4 ++++
> kernel/sched/topology.c | 4 +++-
> 6 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> [..snip..]
Let me know if there is some additional data you would like
me to gather on the test machine.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists