All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
	adharmap@codeaurora.org, pkondeti@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] sched/fair: Capacity aware wakeup rework
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:42:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200207104244.GA228234@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200206191957.12325-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>

On Thursday 06 Feb 2020 at 19:19:53 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Pixel3 (DynamIQ)
> ++++++++++++++++
> 
> Ideally I would have used a DB845C but had a few issues with mine, so I
> went with a mainline-ish Pixel3 instead [1]. It's still the same SoC under
> the hood (Snapdragon 845), which has 4 bigs and 4 LITTLEs:
> 
>   +-------------------------------+
>   |               L3              |
>   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>   | L2| L2| L2| L2| L2| L2| L2| L2|
>   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
>   | L | L | L | L | B | B | B | B |
>   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
> 
> Default topology (single MC domain)
> -----------------------------------
> 
> 100 iterations of 'hackbench -l 200'
> 
> |      |   -PATCH |   +PATCH | DELTA (%) |
> |------+----------+----------+-----------|
> | mean | 1.131360 | 1.102560 |    -2.546 |
> | std  | 0.116322 | 0.101999 |   -12.313 |
> | min  | 0.935000 | 0.935000 |    +0.000 |
> | 50%  | 1.099000 | 1.097500 |    -0.136 |
> | 75%  | 1.211250 | 1.157750 |    -4.417 |
> | 99%  | 1.401020 | 1.338210 |    -4.483 |
> | max  | 1.502000 | 1.359000 |    -9.521 |
> 
> 100 iterations of 'sysbench --max-time=5 --max-requests=-1 --test=threads --num-threads=8 run':
> 
> |      |      -PATCH |      +PATCH | DELTA (%) |
> |------+-------------+-------------+-----------|
> | mean | 7108.310000 | 8731.610000 |   +22.837 |
> | std  |  199.431854 |  206.826912 |    +3.708 |
> | min  | 6655.000000 | 8251.000000 |   +23.982 |
> | 50%  | 7107.500000 | 8705.000000 |   +22.476 |
> | 75%  | 7255.500000 | 8868.250000 |   +22.228 |
> | 99%  | 7539.540000 | 9155.520000 |   +21.433 |
> | max  | 7593.000000 | 9207.000000 |   +21.256 |
> 
> Phantom domains (MC + DIE)
> --------------------------
> 
> This is mostly included for the sake of completeness.
> 
> 100 iterations of 'sysbench --max-time=5 --max-requests=-1 --test=threads --num-threads=8 run':
> 
> |      |      -PATCH |      +PATCH | DELTA (%) |
> |------+-------------+-------------+-----------|
> | mean | 7317.940000 | 9328.470000 |   +27.474 |
> | std  |  460.372682 |  181.528886 |   -60.569 |
> | min  | 5888.000000 | 8832.000000 |   +50.000 |
> | 50%  | 7271.000000 | 9348.000000 |   +28.566 |
> | 75%  | 7497.500000 | 9477.250000 |   +26.405 |
> | 99%  | 8464.390000 | 9634.160000 |   +13.820 |
> | max  | 8602.000000 | 9650.000000 |   +12.183 |


So, it feels like the most interesting test would be

 'baseline w/ phantom domains' vs 'this patch w/o phantom domains'

right ? The 'baseline w/o phantom domains' case is arguably borked today,
so it isn't that interesting (even though it performs well for the
particular workload you choose here, as expected, but I guess you might
see issues in others).

So, IIUC, based on your results above, that would be:

|      |     base+PD |  patch+noPD | DELTA (%) |
|------+-------------+-------------+-----------|
| mean | 7317.940000 | 8731.610000 |   +19.318 |
| std  |  460.372682 |  206.826912 |   -55.074 |
| min  | 5888.000000 | 8251.000000 |   +40.132 |
| 50%  | 7271.000000 | 8705.000000 |   +19.722 |
| 75%  | 7497.500000 | 8868.250000 |   +18.283 |
| 99%  | 8464.390000 | 9155.520000 |    +8.165 |
| max  | 8602.000000 | 9207.000000 |    +7.033 |

Is that correct ?

If so, this patch series is still a very big win, and I'm all for
getting it merged. But I find it interesting that the results aren't as
good as having this patch _and_ phantom domains at the same time ...

Any idea why having phantom domains helps ? select_idle_capacity()
should behave the same w/ or w/o phantom domains given that you use
sd_asym_cpucapacity directly. I'm guessing something else has an impact
here ? LB / misfit behaving a bit differently perhaps ?

Thanks,
Quentin

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-02-07 10:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-06 19:19 [PATCH v4 0/4] sched/fair: Capacity aware wakeup rework Valentin Schneider
2020-02-06 19:19 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] sched/fair: Add asymmetric CPU capacity wakeup scan Valentin Schneider
2020-02-07  5:08   ` Pavan Kondeti
2020-02-07 10:18     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-07 11:01   ` Quentin Perret
2020-02-11 12:47   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Morten Rasmussen
2020-02-20 20:09   ` tip-bot2 for Morten Rasmussen
2020-02-06 19:19 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] sched/topology: Remove SD_BALANCE_WAKE on asymmetric capacity systems Valentin Schneider
2020-02-07 11:03   ` Quentin Perret
2020-02-11 12:47   ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Morten Rasmussen
2020-02-20 20:09   ` tip-bot2 for Morten Rasmussen
2020-02-06 19:19 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] sched: Remove for_each_lower_domain() Valentin Schneider
2020-02-07 11:04   ` Quentin Perret
2020-02-11 12:47   ` [tip: sched/core] sched/core: " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2020-02-20 20:09   ` tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2020-02-06 19:19 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] sched/fair: Kill wake_cap() Valentin Schneider
2020-02-07 11:19   ` Quentin Perret
2020-02-07 12:48     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-11 12:47   ` [tip: sched/core] sched/fair: Remove wake_cap() tip-bot2 for Morten Rasmussen
2020-02-20 20:09   ` tip-bot2 for Morten Rasmussen
2020-02-07 10:42 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2020-02-07 12:41   ` [PATCH v4 0/4] sched/fair: Capacity aware wakeup rework Valentin Schneider

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=20200207104244.GA228234@google.com \
    --to=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=adharmap@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /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.