[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAENh_SQzWeViGDGsqZFZYaNooB3NBKQR7XOkYB26SGEq1cZ5FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 16:31:06 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...dmodwrite.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: aaron.lu@...el.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, kprateek.nayak@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
tim.c.chen@...el.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, yu.chen.surf@...il.com,
yujie.liu@...el.com, kernel-team@...udflare.com, yunzhao@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Optimization to reduce the cost of newidle balance
On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 4:53 AM Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your interest in this patch series. The RFC patch series was sent
> out to seek for directions and to see if this issue is worthy to fix. Since
> you have encountered this issue as well and it seems to be generic issue,
> I'll rebase thie patch series and retest it on top of latest kernel and then
> send out a new version.
Great, thanks!
> > I'm seeing this same symptom of burning cycles in update_sd_lb_stats() on an
> > AMD EPYC 7713 machine (128 CPUs, 8 NUMA nodes). The machine is about 50% idle
> > and upadte_sd_lb_stats() sits as the first entry in perf top with about 3.62%
> > of CPU cycles.
>
> May I know what benchmark(test scenario) you are testing? I'd like to replicate
> this test on my machine as well.
Actually this isn't a benchmark -- this was observed on Cloudflare's
production machines. I'm happy to try out your series and report back.
Thanks,
Matt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists