On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> It's nice to have the option to dynamically play with the parameter.
> But maybe we should also think of changing the default fraction guaranteed
> to the PCP, so that unaware admins of networking servers would also benefit.

I collected some performance data with will-it-scale/page_fault1 process
mode on different machines with different pcp->batch sizes, starting
from the default 31(calculated by zone_batchsize(), 31 is the standard
value for any zone that has more than 1/2MiB memory), then incremented
by 31 upwards till 527. PCP's upper limit is 6*batch.

An image is plotted and attached: batch_full.png(full here means the
number of process started equals to CPU number).

>From the image:
- For EX machines, they all see throughput increase with increased batch
  size and peaked at around batch_size=310, then fall;
- For EP machines, Haswell-EP and Broadwell-EP also see throughput
  increase with increased batch size and peaked at batch_size=279, then
  fall, batch_size=310 also delivers pretty good result. Skylake-EP is
  quite different in that it doesn't see any obvious throughput increase
  after batch_size=93, though the trend is still increasing, but in a very
  small way and finally peaked at batch_size=403, then fall.
  Ivybridge EP behaves much like desktop ones.
- For Desktop machines, they do not see any obvious changes with
  increased batch_size.

So the default batch size(31) doesn't deliver good enough result, we
probbaly should change the default value.