Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:49:42 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:19 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, > >> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads > >> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear > >> performance change found. > > > > Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is > > there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions > > with the bunch of benchmarks. > > > >> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, > >> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever > >> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving > >> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change. > > > > I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit > > when saving power... > > > > BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master. > The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy. > The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical.
That makes sense. How the numa scheduling numbers compare to mainline? Do you have all three available, mainline, and tip w. w/o powersaving policy?
-Mike
| |