From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759707Ab3E3Ao5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2013 20:44:57 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:44821 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752593Ab3E3Aou (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2013 20:44:50 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,767,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="345424661" Message-ID: <51A6A0E0.5020200@intel.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:44:16 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Low , peterz@infradead.org CC: mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [patch v6 8/8] sched: remove blocked_load_avg in tg References: <1368199049-2798-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1368199049-2798-9-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1369846845.6121.6.camel@j-VirtualBox> In-Reply-To: <1369846845.6121.6.camel@j-VirtualBox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/30/2013 01:00 AM, Jason Low wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 23:17 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load >> avg. that make balance make wrong decision. So better don't consider it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > > Hi Alex, > > I have been testing these patches with a Java server workload on an 8 > socket (80 core) box with Hyperthreading enabled, and I have been seeing > good results with these patches. > > When using a 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with patches 1-8, there was about a 40% > improvement in performance of the workload compared to when using the > vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel with no patches. When using a 3.10-rc2 tip > kernel with just patches 1-7, the performance improvement of the > workload over the vanilla 3.10-rc2 tip kernel was about 25%. > > Tested-by: Jason Low > That is impressive! Thanks a lot for your testing! Just curious, what the benchmark are you using? :) > Thanks, > Jason > -- Thanks Alex