Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Couple wakee flips with heavy wakers | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:13:59 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 12:57 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > The patch in question was also tested on other workloads on NUMA > machines. For a 2-socket machine (20 cores, HT enabled so 40 CPUs) > running specjbb 2005 with one JVM per NUMA node, the patch also scaled > reasonably well
That's way more more interesting. No idea what this thing does under the hood thus whether it should be helped or not, but at least it's a real deal benchmark vs a kernel hacker tool.
> specjbb > 5.15.0-rc3 5.15.0-rc3 > vanilla sched-wakeeflips-v1r1 > Hmean tput-1 50044.48 ( 0.00%) 53969.00 * 7.84%* > Hmean tput-2 106050.31 ( 0.00%) 113580.78 * 7.10%* > Hmean tput-3 156701.44 ( 0.00%) 164857.00 * 5.20%* > Hmean tput-4 196538.75 ( 0.00%) 218373.42 * 11.11%* > Hmean tput-5 247566.16 ( 0.00%) 267173.09 * 7.92%* > Hmean tput-6 284981.46 ( 0.00%) 311007.14 * 9.13%* > Hmean tput-7 328882.48 ( 0.00%) 359373.89 * 9.27%* > Hmean tput-8 366941.24 ( 0.00%) 393244.37 * 7.17%* > Hmean tput-9 402386.74 ( 0.00%) 433010.43 * 7.61%* > Hmean tput-10 437551.05 ( 0.00%) 475756.08 * 8.73%* > Hmean tput-11 481349.41 ( 0.00%) 519824.54 * 7.99%* > Hmean tput-12 533148.45 ( 0.00%) 565070.21 * 5.99%* > Hmean tput-13 570563.97 ( 0.00%) 609499.06 * 6.82%* > Hmean tput-14 601117.97 ( 0.00%) 647876.05 * 7.78%* > Hmean tput-15 639096.38 ( 0.00%) 690854.46 * 8.10%* > Hmean tput-16 682644.91 ( 0.00%) 722826.06 * 5.89%* > Hmean tput-17 732248.96 ( 0.00%) 758805.17 * 3.63%* > Hmean tput-18 762771.33 ( 0.00%) 791211.66 * 3.73%* > Hmean tput-19 780582.92 ( 0.00%) 819064.19 * 4.93%* > Hmean tput-20 812183.95 ( 0.00%) 836664.87 * 3.01%* > Hmean tput-21 821415.48 ( 0.00%) 833734.23 ( 1.50%) > Hmean tput-22 815457.65 ( 0.00%) 844393.98 * 3.55%* > Hmean tput-23 819263.63 ( 0.00%) 846109.07 * 3.28%* > Hmean tput-24 817962.95 ( 0.00%) 839682.92 * 2.66%* > Hmean tput-25 807814.64 ( 0.00%) 841826.52 * 4.21%* > Hmean tput-26 811755.89 ( 0.00%) 838543.08 * 3.30%* > Hmean tput-27 799341.75 ( 0.00%) 833487.26 * 4.27%* > Hmean tput-28 803434.89 ( 0.00%) 829022.50 * 3.18%* > Hmean tput-29 803233.25 ( 0.00%) 826622.37 * 2.91%* > Hmean tput-30 800465.12 ( 0.00%) 824347.42 * 2.98%* > Hmean tput-31 791284.39 ( 0.00%) 791575.67 ( 0.04%) > Hmean tput-32 781930.07 ( 0.00%) 805725.80 ( 3.04%) > Hmean tput-33 785194.31 ( 0.00%) 804795.44 ( 2.50%) > Hmean tput-34 781325.67 ( 0.00%) 800067.53 ( 2.40%) > Hmean tput-35 777715.92 ( 0.00%) 753926.32 ( -3.06%) > Hmean tput-36 770516.85 ( 0.00%) 783328.32 ( 1.66%) > Hmean tput-37 758067.26 ( 0.00%) 772243.18 * 1.87%* > Hmean tput-38 764815.45 ( 0.00%) 769156.32 ( 0.57%) > Hmean tput-39 757885.41 ( 0.00%) 757670.59 ( -0.03%) > Hmean tput-40 750140.15 ( 0.00%) 760739.13 ( 1.41%) > > The largest regression was within noise. Most results were outside the > noise. > > Some HPC workloads showed little difference but they do not communicate > that heavily. redis microbenchmark showed mostly neutral results. > schbench (facebook simulator workload that is latency sensitive) showed a > mix of results, but helped more than it hurt. Even the machine with the > worst results for schbench showed improved wakeup latencies at the 99th > percentile. These were all on NUMA machines. >
| |