Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Jan 2021 14:38:35 +0100 (CET) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: check for idle core |
| |
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 10:20, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 09:38:14PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 03:15:50PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > > > Fixes: 11f10e5420f6 ("sched/fair: Use load instead of runnable load in wakeup path") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> > > > > > > Reviewed-by Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While not a universal win, it was mostly a win or neutral. In few cases > > > > > where there was a problem, one benchmark I'm a bit suspicious of generally > > > > > as occasionally it generates bad results for unknown and unpredictable > > > > > reasons. In another, it was very machine specific and the differences > > > > > were small in absolte time rather than relative time. Other tests on the > > > > > same machine were fine so overall; > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> > > > > > > > > Recently, we have been testing the phoronix multicore benchmarks. On v5.9 > > > > with this patch, the preparation time of phoronix slows down, from ~23 > > > > seconds to ~28 seconds. In v5.11-rc4, we see 29 seconds. It's not yet > > > > clear what causes the problem. But perhaps the patch should be removed > > > > from v5.11, until the problem is understood. > > > > > > > > commit d8fcb81f1acf651a0e50eacecca43d0524984f87 > > > > > > > > > > I'm not 100% convinved given that it was a mix of wins and losses. In > > > the wakup path in general, universal wins almost never happen. It's not > > > 100% clear from your mail what happens during the preparation patch. If > > > it included time to download the benchmarks and install then it would be > > > inherently variable due to network time (if download) or cache hotness > > > (if installing/compiling). While preparation time can be interesting -- > > > for example, if preparation involves reading a lot of files from disk, > > > it's not universally interesting when it's not the critical phase of a > > > benchmark. > > > > The benchmark is completely downloaded prior to the runs. There seems to > > be some perturbation to the activation of containerd. Normally it is > > even: * * * * > > Does it impact the benchmark results too or only the preparation prior > to running the benchmark ?
Looking at a few of the benchmarks, there is no clear pattern which is better. But there is not a big degradation, like from 23 to 28 seconds for the preparation time. I will report back when we figure out more.
julia
> > > > > and with the patch it becomes more like: * ** ** > > > > That is every other one is on time, and every other one is late. > > > > But I don't know why this happens. > > > > julia > > > > > > > > I think it would be better to wait until the problem is fully understood > > > to see if it's a timing artifact (e.g. a race between when prev_cpu is > > > observed to be idle and when it is busy). > > I agree that a better understanding of what is happening is necessary > before any changes > > > > > > > -- > > > Mel Gorman > > > SUSE Labs > > > >
| |