| 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: <20230927130810.GD37422@maniforge>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:08:10 -0500
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, gautham.shenoy@....com,
aaron.lu@...el.com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Add a per-shard overload flag
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 09:53:13AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Hello David,
Hi Prateek,
> Some more test results (although this might be slightly irrelevant with
> next version around the corner)
Excellent, thanks for running these tests. The results are certainly
encouraging, and it seems clear that we could really improve the feature
by adding some of the logic you've experimented with to v5 (whether it's
the rq->avg_idle check, the per-shard overload, etc). I know that I owe
at least you and Chenyu more substantive responses on this and a few of
other emails that have been sent over the last week or two. I apologize
for the latency in my responses. I'm still at Kernel Recipes, but plan
to focus on this for the next couple of weeks after I'm back stateside.
I originally intended to revisit this _last_ week after my PTO, but got
caught up in helping with some sched_ext related stuff.
Just wanted to give you and everyone else a heads up that I haven't been
ignoring this intentionally, I've just been preempted a lot with travel
this month.
All of the work you folks are putting in is extremely helpful and
appreciated. I'm excited by the improvements we're making to
SHARED_RUNQ, and think that a lot of this can and should be folded into
v5.
So with that said, please feel free to keep experimenting and
discussing, and I'll rejoin the convo full time as soon as I can (which
should be either Friday or next week).
- David
>
> On 9/1/2023 12:41 AM, David Vernet wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:15:08PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prateek,
> >
> >> Even with the two patches, I still observe the following lock
> >> contention when profiling the tbench 128-clients run with IBS:
> >>
> >> - 12.61% swapper [kernel.vmlinux] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> >> - 10.94% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> >> - 10.73% _raw_spin_lock
> >> - 9.57% __schedule
> >> schedule_idle
> >> do_idle
> >> + cpu_startup_entry
> >> - 0.82% task_rq_lock
> >> newidle_balance
> >> pick_next_task_fair
> >> __schedule
> >> schedule_idle
> >> do_idle
> >> + cpu_startup_entry
> >>
> >> Since David mentioned rq->avg_idle check is probably not the right step
> >> towards the solution, this experiment introduces a per-shard
> >> "overload" flag. Similar to "rq->rd->overload", per-shard overload flag
> >> notifies of the possibility of one or more rq covered in the shard's
> >> domain having a queued task. shard's overload flag is set at the same
> >> time as "rq->rd->overload", and is cleared when shard's list is found
> >> to be empty.
> >
> > I think this is an interesting idea, but I feel that it's still working
> > against the core proposition of SHARED_RUNQ, which is to enable work
> > conservation.
> >
> I have some more numbers. This time I'm accounting the cost for peeking
> into the shared-runq and have two variants - one that keeps the current
> vanilla flow from your v3 and the other that moves the rq->avg_idle
> check before looking at the shared-runq. Following are the results:
>
> -> Without EEVDF
>
> o tl;dr
>
> - With avg_idle check, the improvements observed with shared-runq
> aren't as large but they are still noticeable.
>
> - Most regressions are gone nad the others aren't as bad with the
> introduction of shared-runq
>
> o Kernels
>
> base : tip is at commit 88c56cfeaec4 ("sched/fair: Block nohz tick_stop when cfs bandwidth in use")
> shared_runq : base + correct time accounting with v3 of the series without any other changes
> shared_runq_idle_check : shared_runq + move the rq->avg_idle check before peeking into the shared_runq
> (the rd->overload check still remains below the shared_runq access)
>
> o Benchmarks
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : hackbench
> Units : Normalized time in seconds
> Interpretation: Lower is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Case: base[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.64) 0.90 [ 10.20]( 8.79) 0.93 [ 7.08]( 3.87)
> 2-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.97) 0.85 [ 15.06]( 4.86) 0.96 [ 4.47]( 2.22)
> 4-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.84) 0.93 [ 7.38]( 2.63) 0.94 [ 6.07]( 1.02)
> 8-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.24) 0.97 [ 2.83]( 2.69) 0.98 [ 1.82]( 1.01)
> 16-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.31) 1.03 [ -2.93]( 2.46) 1.02 [ -1.61]( 1.34)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : tbench
> Units : Normalized throughput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Clients: base[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.08) 0.98 [ -1.89]( 0.48) 0.99 [ -0.73]( 0.70)
> 2 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.69) 0.99 [ -1.48]( 0.24) 0.98 [ -1.62]( 0.85)
> 4 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.70) 0.97 [ -2.87]( 1.34) 0.98 [ -2.15]( 0.48)
> 8 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.85) 0.97 [ -3.17]( 1.56) 0.99 [ -1.32]( 1.09)
> 16 1.00 [ 0.00]( 2.18) 0.91 [ -8.70]( 0.27) 0.98 [ -2.03]( 1.28)
> 32 1.00 [ 0.00]( 3.84) 0.51 [-48.53]( 2.52) 1.01 [ 1.41]( 3.83)
> 64 1.00 [ 0.00]( 7.06) 0.38 [-62.49]( 1.89) 1.05 [ 5.33]( 4.09)
> 128 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.88) 0.41 [-58.92]( 0.28) 1.01 [ 0.54]( 1.65)
> 256 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.88) 0.97 [ -2.56]( 1.78) 1.00 [ -0.48]( 0.33)
> 512 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.07) 1.00 [ 0.06]( 0.04) 0.98 [ -1.51]( 0.44)
> 1024 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.30) 0.99 [ -1.35]( 0.90) 1.00 [ -0.24]( 0.41)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : stream-10
> Units : Normalized Bandwidth, MB/s
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : HMean
> ==================================================================
> Test: base[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> Copy 1.00 [ 0.00]( 8.87) 1.00 [ 0.31]( 5.27) 1.09 [ 9.11]( 0.58)
> Scale 1.00 [ 0.00]( 6.80) 0.99 [ -0.81]( 7.20) 1.00 [ 0.49]( 5.67)
> Add 1.00 [ 0.00]( 7.24) 0.99 [ -1.13]( 7.02) 1.02 [ 2.06]( 6.36)
> Triad 1.00 [ 0.00]( 5.00) 0.96 [ -4.11]( 9.37) 1.03 [ 3.46]( 4.41)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : stream-100
> Units : Normalized Bandwidth, MB/s
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : HMean
> ==================================================================
> Test: base[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> Copy 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.45) 1.00 [ 0.32]( 1.88) 1.04 [ 4.02]( 1.45)
> Scale 1.00 [ 0.00]( 4.40) 0.98 [ -1.76]( 6.46) 1.01 [ 1.28]( 1.00)
> Add 1.00 [ 0.00]( 4.97) 0.98 [ -1.85]( 6.01) 1.03 [ 2.75]( 0.24)
> Triad 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.24) 0.96 [ -3.82]( 6.41) 0.99 [ -1.10]( 4.47)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : netperf
> Units : Normalized Througput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Clients: base[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.46) 0.98 [ -2.37]( 0.08) 0.99 [ -1.32]( 0.37)
> 2-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.75) 0.98 [ -2.04]( 0.33) 0.98 [ -1.57]( 0.50)
> 4-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.84) 0.97 [ -3.25]( 1.01) 0.99 [ -0.77]( 0.54)
> 8-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.78) 0.96 [ -4.18]( 0.68) 0.99 [ -0.77]( 0.63)
> 16-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 2.56) 0.84 [-15.71]( 6.33) 1.00 [ -0.35]( 0.58)
> 32-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.03) 0.35 [-64.92]( 8.90) 0.98 [ -1.92]( 1.67)
> 64-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 2.69) 0.26 [-74.05]( 6.56) 0.98 [ -2.46]( 2.42)
> 128-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.91) 0.25 [-74.81]( 3.67) 0.99 [ -1.50]( 2.15)
> 256-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 2.21) 0.92 [ -7.73]( 2.29) 0.98 [ -1.51]( 1.85)
> 512-clients 1.00 [ 0.00](45.18) 0.96 [ -4.06](52.89) 0.98 [ -2.49](49.22)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : schbench
> Units : Normalized 99th percentile latency in us
> Interpretation: Lower is better
> Statistic : Median
> ==================================================================
> #workers: base[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1 1.00 [ -0.00](12.03) 1.04 [ -4.35](34.64) 1.13 [-13.04]( 2.25)
> 2 1.00 [ -0.00]( 9.36) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.56) 1.12 [-11.54](12.83)
> 4 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.95) 1.00 [ -0.00](13.36) 0.93 [ 6.67]( 9.10)
> 8 1.00 [ -0.00]( 9.01) 0.97 [ 2.70]( 4.68) 1.03 [ -2.70](12.11)
> 16 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.08) 1.02 [ -2.00]( 3.01) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 7.33)
> 32 1.00 [ -0.00]( 0.75) 1.03 [ -2.60]( 8.20) 1.09 [ -9.09]( 4.24)
> 64 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.15) 0.91 [ 9.20]( 1.03) 1.01 [ -0.61]( 7.14)
> 128 1.00 [ -0.00]( 5.18) 1.05 [ -4.57]( 7.74) 1.01 [ -0.57]( 5.62)
> 256 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.18) 1.06 [ -5.87](51.02) 1.10 [ -9.51](15.82)
> 512 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.10) 1.03 [ -3.36]( 2.88) 1.06 [ -5.87]( 1.10)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : Unixbench
> Units : Various, Throughput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean, Hmean (Specified)
> ==================================================================
> base shared_runq shared_runq_idle_check
> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-1 41407024.82 ( 0.00%) 41211208.57 ( -0.47%) 41354094.87 ( -0.13%)
> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-512 6249629291.88 ( 0.00%) 6245782129.00 ( -0.06%) 6236514875.97 ( -0.21%)
> Amean unixbench-syscall-1 2922580.63 ( 0.00%) 2928021.57 * -0.19%* 2895742.17 * 0.92%*
> Amean unixbench-syscall-512 7606400.73 ( 0.00%) 8390396.33 * -10.31%* 8236409.00 * -8.28%*
> Hmean unixbench-pipe-1 2574942.54 ( 0.00%) 2610825.75 * 1.39%* 2531492.38 * -1.69%*
> Hmean unixbench-pipe-512 364489246.31 ( 0.00%) 366388360.22 * 0.52%* 360160487.66 * -1.19%*
> Hmean unixbench-spawn-1 4428.94 ( 0.00%) 4391.20 ( -0.85%) 4541.06 ( 2.53%)
> Hmean unixbench-spawn-512 68883.47 ( 0.00%) 69143.38 ( 0.38%) 69776.01 * 1.30%*
> Hmean unixbench-execl-1 3878.47 ( 0.00%) 3861.63 ( -0.43%) 3873.96 ( -0.12%)
> Hmean unixbench-execl-512 11638.84 ( 0.00%) 12758.38 * 9.62%* 14001.23 * 20.30%*
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : ycsb-mongodb
> Units : Throughput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> tip : 1.00 (var: 1.41%)
> shared_runq : 0.99 (var: 0.84%) (diff: -1.40%)
> shared_runq_idle_check : 1.00 (var: 0.79%) (diff: 0.00%)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : DeathStarBench
> Units : %diff, relative to base
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> pinning scaling eevdf shared_runq shared_runq_idle_check
> 1CDD 1 0% -0.39% -0.09%
> 2CDD 2 0% -0.31% -1.73%
> 4CDD 4 0% 3.28% 0.60%
> 8CDD 8 0% 4.35% 2.98%
>
>
> -> With EEVDF
>
> o tl;dr
>
> - Same as what was observed without EEVDF but shared_runq shows
> serious regression with multiple more variants of tbench and
> netperf now.
>
> o Kernels
>
> eevdf : tip:sched/core at commit b41bbb33cf75 ("Merge branch 'sched/eevdf' into sched/core")
> shared_runq : eevdf + correct time accounting with v3 of the series without any other changes
> shared_runq_idle_check : shared_runq + move the rq->avg_idle check before peeking into the shared_runq
> (the rd->overload check still remains below the shared_runq access)
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : hackbench
> Units : Normalized time in seconds
> Interpretation: Lower is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Case: eevdf[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.89) 0.95 [ 4.72]( 8.98) 0.99 [ 0.83]( 3.77)
> 2-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.04) 0.86 [ 13.87]( 2.59) 0.95 [ 4.92]( 1.98)
> 4-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.38) 0.96 [ 4.50]( 3.44) 0.98 [ 2.45]( 1.93)
> 8-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.52) 1.01 [ -0.95]( 1.36) 0.96 [ 3.97]( 0.89)
> 16-groups 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.44) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 1.59) 0.96 [ 3.91]( 3.36)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : tbench
> Units : Normalized throughput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Clients: eevdf[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.18) 1.00 [ 0.15]( 0.59) 0.98 [ -1.76]( 0.74)
> 2 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.63) 0.97 [ -3.44]( 0.91) 0.98 [ -1.93]( 1.27)
> 4 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.86) 0.95 [ -4.86]( 0.85) 0.99 [ -1.15]( 0.77)
> 8 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.22) 0.94 [ -6.44]( 1.31) 0.99 [ -1.00]( 0.97)
> 16 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.99) 0.86 [-13.68]( 0.38) 1.00 [ -0.47]( 0.99)
> 32 1.00 [ 0.00]( 4.29) 0.48 [-52.21]( 0.53) 1.01 [ 1.24]( 6.66)
> 64 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.71) 0.35 [-64.68]( 0.44) 0.99 [ -0.66]( 0.70)
> 128 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.65) 0.40 [-60.32]( 0.95) 0.98 [ -2.15]( 1.25)
> 256 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.19) 0.72 [-28.28]( 1.88) 0.99 [ -1.39]( 2.50)
> 512 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.20) 0.79 [-20.59]( 4.40) 1.00 [ -0.42]( 0.38)
> 1024 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.29) 0.80 [-20.24]( 0.64) 0.99 [ -0.51]( 0.20)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : stream-10
> Units : Normalized Bandwidth, MB/s
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : HMean
> ==================================================================
> Test: eevdf[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> Copy 1.00 [ 0.00]( 4.32) 0.94 [ -6.40]( 8.05) 1.01 [ 1.39]( 4.58)
> Scale 1.00 [ 0.00]( 5.21) 0.98 [ -2.15]( 6.79) 0.95 [ -4.54]( 7.35)
> Add 1.00 [ 0.00]( 6.25) 0.97 [ -2.64]( 6.47) 0.97 [ -3.08]( 7.49)
> Triad 1.00 [ 0.00](10.74) 1.01 [ 0.92]( 7.40) 1.01 [ 1.25]( 8.76)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : stream-100
> Units : Normalized Bandwidth, MB/s
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : HMean
> ==================================================================
> Test: eevdf[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> Copy 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.70) 1.00 [ -0.07]( 0.70) 1.00 [ 0.47]( 0.94)
> Scale 1.00 [ 0.00]( 6.55) 1.02 [ 1.72]( 4.83) 1.03 [ 2.96]( 1.00)
> Add 1.00 [ 0.00]( 6.53) 1.02 [ 1.53]( 4.77) 1.03 [ 3.19]( 0.90)
> Triad 1.00 [ 0.00]( 6.66) 1.00 [ 0.06]( 6.29) 0.99 [ -0.70]( 5.79)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : netperf
> Units : Normalized Througput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> Clients: eevdf[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.46) 1.02 [ 1.73]( 0.31) 0.99 [ -0.81]( 0.24)
> 2-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.38) 0.99 [ -0.68]( 1.17) 0.99 [ -0.87]( 0.45)
> 4-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.72) 0.97 [ -3.38]( 1.38) 0.99 [ -1.26]( 0.47)
> 8-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.98) 0.94 [ -6.30]( 1.84) 1.00 [ -0.44]( 0.45)
> 16-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.70) 0.56 [-44.08]( 5.11) 0.99 [ -0.83]( 0.49)
> 32-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 0.74) 0.35 [-64.92]( 1.98) 0.98 [ -2.14]( 2.14)
> 64-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 2.24) 0.26 [-73.79]( 5.72) 0.97 [ -2.57]( 2.44)
> 128-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 1.72) 0.25 [-74.91]( 6.72) 0.96 [ -3.66]( 1.48)
> 256-clients 1.00 [ 0.00]( 4.44) 0.68 [-31.60]( 5.42) 0.96 [ -3.61]( 3.64)
> 512-clients 1.00 [ 0.00](52.42) 0.67 [-32.81](48.45) 0.96 [ -3.80](55.24)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : schbench
> Units : Normalized 99th percentile latency in us
> Interpretation: Lower is better
> Statistic : Median
> ==================================================================
> #workers: eevdf[pct imp](CV) shared_runq[pct imp](CV) shared_runq_idle_check[pct imp](CV)
> 1 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.28) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 6.19) 0.84 [ 16.00](20.83)
> 2 1.00 [ -0.00]( 6.42) 0.89 [ 10.71]( 2.34) 0.96 [ 3.57]( 4.17)
> 4 1.00 [ -0.00]( 3.77) 0.97 [ 3.33]( 7.35) 1.00 [ -0.00]( 9.12)
> 8 1.00 [ -0.00](13.83) 1.03 [ -2.63]( 6.96) 0.95 [ 5.26]( 6.93)
> 16 1.00 [ -0.00]( 4.37) 1.02 [ -2.13]( 4.17) 1.02 [ -2.13]( 3.53)
> 32 1.00 [ -0.00]( 8.69) 0.96 [ 3.70]( 5.23) 0.98 [ 2.47]( 4.43)
> 64 1.00 [ -0.00]( 2.30) 0.96 [ 3.85]( 2.34) 0.92 [ 7.69]( 4.14)
> 128 1.00 [ -0.00](12.12) 0.97 [ 3.12]( 3.31) 0.93 [ 6.53]( 5.31)
> 256 1.00 [ -0.00](26.04) 1.87 [-86.57](33.02) 1.63 [-62.73](40.63)
> 512 1.00 [ -0.00]( 5.62) 1.04 [ -3.80]( 0.35) 1.09 [ -8.78]( 2.56)
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : Unixbench
> Units : Various, Throughput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean, Hmean (Specified)
> ==================================================================
>
> eevdf shared_runq shared_runq_idle_check
> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-1 41248390.97 ( 0.00%) 41245183.04 ( -0.01%) 41297801.58 ( 0.12%)
> Hmean unixbench-dhry2reg-512 6239969914.15 ( 0.00%) 6236534715.56 ( -0.06%) 6237356670.12 ( -0.04%)
> Amean unixbench-syscall-1 2968518.27 ( 0.00%) 2893792.10 * 2.52%* 2799609.00 * 5.69%*
> Amean unixbench-syscall-512 7790656.20 ( 0.00%) 8489302.67 * -8.97%* 7685974.47 * 1.34%*
> Hmean unixbench-pipe-1 2535689.01 ( 0.00%) 2554662.39 * 0.75%* 2521853.23 * -0.55%*
> Hmean unixbench-pipe-512 361385055.25 ( 0.00%) 365752991.35 * 1.21%* 358310503.28 * -0.85%*
> Hmean unixbench-spawn-1 4506.26 ( 0.00%) 4566.00 ( 1.33%) 4242.52 * -5.85%*
> Hmean unixbench-spawn-512 69380.09 ( 0.00%) 69554.52 ( 0.25%) 69413.14 ( 0.05%)
> Hmean unixbench-execl-1 3824.57 ( 0.00%) 3782.82 * -1.09%* 3832.10 ( 0.20%)
> Hmean unixbench-execl-512 12288.64 ( 0.00%) 13248.40 ( 7.81%) 12661.78 ( 3.04%)
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : ycsb-mongodb
> Units : Throughput
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> eevdf : 1.00 (var: 1.41%)
> shared_runq : 0.98 (var: 0.84%) (diff: -2.40%)
> shared_runq_idle_check : 0.97 (var: 0.79%) (diff: -3.06%)
>
>
> ==================================================================
> Test : DeathStarBench
> Units : %diff, relative to eevdf
> Interpretation: Higher is better
> Statistic : AMean
> ==================================================================
> pinning scaling eevdf shared_runq shared_runq_idle_check
> 1CDD 1 0% -0.85% -1.56%
> 2CDD 2 0% -0.60% -1.22%
> 4CDD 4 0% 2.87% 0.02%
> 8CDD 8 0% 0.36% 1.57%
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards,
> Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists