All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, riel@redhat.com,
	hpa@zytor.com, efault@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, lvenanci@redhat.com,
	xiaolong.ye@intel.com, kitsunyan@inbox.ru, clm@fb.com
Subject: Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:00:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170519150035.GA2879@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170517105350.hk5m4h4jb6dfr65a@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Please test..

Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
applied.

It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
out:

hackbench-process-pipes
                            4.4.68                     4.4.68                4.4.68                4.4.68
                        sles12-sp3 select-idle-cpu-aggressive for-each-cpu-wrap-fix  latest-hackbench-fix
Amean    1        0.8853 (  0.00%)           1.2160 (-37.35%)      1.0350 (-16.91%)      1.1853 (-33.89%)

This machine has 80 CPUs and that's a 40 process workload.

Here's the key:

select-idle-cpu-aggressive: 4c77b18cf8b7 ("sched/fair: Make select_idle_cpu() more aggressive")
for-each-cpu-wrap-fix: c743f0a5c50f ("sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()")
latest-hackbench-fix: this patch

But those results definitely look to be an exception. Here's the same
machine running the same number of tasks but with pthreads,

hackbench-thread-pipes
                            4.4.68                     4.4.68                4.4.68                4.4.68
                        sles12-sp3 select-idle-cpu-aggressive for-each-cpu-wrap-fix  latest-hackbench-fix
Amean    1        0.7427 (  0.00%)           0.9760 (-31.42%)      1.1907 (-60.32%)      0.7643 ( -2.92%)

Nice win.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-05-19 15:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-13 13:56 [RFC 0/3] sched/topology: fix sched groups on NUMA machines with mesh topology Lauro Ramos Venancio
2017-04-13 13:56 ` [RFC 1/3] sched/topology: Refactor function build_overlap_sched_groups() Lauro Ramos Venancio
2017-04-13 14:50   ` Rik van Riel
2017-05-15  9:02   ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Lauro Ramos Venancio
2017-04-13 13:56 ` [RFC 2/3] sched/topology: fix sched groups on NUMA machines with mesh topology Lauro Ramos Venancio
2017-04-13 15:16   ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-13 15:48   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-13 20:21     ` Lauro Venancio
2017-04-13 21:06       ` Lauro Venancio
2017-04-13 23:38         ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-14 10:48           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-14 11:38   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-14 12:20     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-15  9:03       ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-17 10:53         ` hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: " Peter Zijlstra
2017-05-17 12:46           ` Matt Fleming
2017-05-17 14:49           ` Chris Mason
2017-05-19 15:00           ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2017-06-05 13:00             ` Matt Fleming
2017-06-06  9:21               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-09 17:52                 ` Chris Mason
2017-06-08  9:22           ` [tip:sched/core] sched/core: Implement new approach to scale select_idle_cpu() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-14 16:58     ` [RFC 2/3] sched/topology: fix sched groups on NUMA machines with mesh topology Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-17 14:40       ` Lauro Venancio
2017-04-13 13:56 ` [RFC 3/3] sched/topology: Different sched groups must not have the same balance cpu Lauro Ramos Venancio
2017-04-13 15:27   ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-14 16:49   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-17 15:34     ` Lauro Venancio
2017-04-18 12:32       ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170519150035.GA2879@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kitsunyan@inbox.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lvenanci@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.