From: Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>
To: Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:09:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200301190009.32245.efocht@ess.nec.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1042848809.24867.483.camel@dyn9-47-17-164.beaverton.ibm.com>
The scan through a piece of the parameter space delivered quite
unconclusive results. I used the IDLE_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK multipliers
2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and the BUSY_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK multipliers 2, 5,
10, 20.
The benchmarks I tried were kernbench (average and error of 5 kernel
compiles) and hackbench (5 runs for each number of chatter groups
(10,25,50,100). The 2.5.59 scheduler result is printed first, then a
matrix with all combinations of idle and busy rebalance
multipliers. Each value is followed by its standard error (coming from
the 5 measurements). I didn't measure numa_bench, those values depend
mostly on the initial load balancing and showed no clear
tendency/difference.
The machine is an NEC TX7 (small version, 8 Itanium2 CPUs in 4 nodes).
The results:
- kernbench UserTime is best for the 2.5.59 scheduler (623s). IngoB0
best value 627.33s for idle=20ms, busy=2000ms.
- hackbench: 2.5.59 scheduler is significantly better for all
measurements.
I suppose this comes from the fact that the 2.5.59 version has the
chance to load_balance across nodes when a cpu goes idle. No idea what
other reason it could be... Maybe anybody else?
Kernbench:
==========
2.5.59 : Elapsed = 86.29(1.24)
ingo B0 : Elapsed
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 86.25(0.45) 86.62(1.56) 86.29(0.99) 85.99(0.60) 86.91(1.09)
5 86.87(1.12) 86.38(0.82) 86.00(0.69) 86.14(0.39) 86.47(0.68)
10 86.06(0.18) 86.23(0.38) 86.63(0.57) 86.82(0.95) 86.06(0.15)
20 86.64(1.24) 86.43(0.74) 86.15(0.99) 86.76(1.34) 86.70(0.68)
2.5.59 : UserTime = 623.24(0.46)
ingo B0 : UserTime
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 629.05(0.32) 628.54(0.53) 628.51(0.32) 628.66(0.23) 628.72(0.20)
5 628.14(0.88) 628.10(0.76) 628.33(0.41) 628.45(0.48) 628.11(0.37)
10 627.97(0.30) 627.77(0.23) 627.75(0.21) 627.33(0.45) 627.63(0.52)
20 627.55(0.36) 627.67(0.58) 627.36(0.67) 627.84(0.28) 627.69(0.59)
2.5.59 : SysTime = 21.83(0.16)
ingo B0 : SysTime
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 21.99(0.26) 21.89(0.12) 22.12(0.16) 22.06(0.21) 22.44(0.51)
5 22.07(0.21) 22.29(0.54) 22.15(0.08) 22.09(0.26) 21.90(0.18)
10 22.01(0.20) 22.42(0.42) 22.28(0.23) 22.04(0.37) 22.41(0.26)
20 22.03(0.20) 22.08(0.30) 22.31(0.27) 22.03(0.19) 22.35(0.33)
Hackbench 10
=============
2.5.59 : 0.77(0.03)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 0.90(0.07) 0.88(0.05) 0.84(0.05) 0.82(0.04) 0.85(0.06)
5 0.87(0.05) 0.90(0.07) 0.88(0.08) 0.89(0.09) 0.86(0.07)
10 0.85(0.06) 0.83(0.05) 0.86(0.08) 0.84(0.06) 0.87(0.06)
20 0.85(0.05) 0.87(0.07) 0.83(0.05) 0.86(0.07) 0.87(0.05)
Hackbench 25
=============
2.5.59 : 1.96(0.05)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 2.20(0.13) 2.21(0.12) 2.23(0.10) 2.20(0.10) 2.16(0.07)
5 2.13(0.12) 2.17(0.13) 2.18(0.08) 2.10(0.11) 2.16(0.10)
10 2.19(0.08) 2.21(0.12) 2.22(0.09) 2.11(0.10) 2.15(0.10)
20 2.11(0.17) 2.13(0.08) 2.18(0.06) 2.13(0.11) 2.13(0.14)
Hackbench 50
=============
2.5.59 : 3.78(0.10)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 4.31(0.13) 4.30(0.29) 4.29(0.15) 4.23(0.20) 4.14(0.10)
5 4.35(0.16) 4.34(0.24) 4.24(0.24) 4.09(0.18) 4.12(0.14)
10 4.35(0.23) 4.21(0.14) 4.36(0.24) 4.18(0.12) 4.36(0.21)
20 4.34(0.14) 4.27(0.17) 4.18(0.18) 4.29(0.24) 4.08(0.09)
Hackbench 100
==============
2.5.59 : 7.85(0.37)
ingo B0:
idle 2 5 10 20 50
busy
2 8.21(0.42) 8.07(0.25) 8.32(0.30) 8.06(0.26) 8.10(0.13)
5 8.13(0.25) 8.06(0.33) 8.14(0.49) 8.24(0.24) 8.04(0.20)
10 8.05(0.17) 8.16(0.13) 8.13(0.16) 8.05(0.24) 8.01(0.30)
20 8.21(0.25) 8.23(0.24) 8.36(0.41) 8.30(0.37) 8.10(0.30)
Regards,
Erich
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-18 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-09 23:54 Minature NUMA scheduler Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-10 5:36 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-10 16:34 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-10 16:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-12 23:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-12 23:55 ` NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Erich Focht
2003-01-13 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 11:32 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 15:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-13 15:46 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-13 19:03 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 1:23 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 4:45 ` [Lse-tech] " Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 4:56 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 11:14 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 15:55 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:07 ` [Lse-tech] " Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-14 16:23 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Erich Focht
2003-01-14 16:43 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 19:02 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 21:56 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 15:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 0:14 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-16 6:05 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 16:47 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-16 18:07 ` Robert Love
2003-01-16 18:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 18:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 19:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-16 19:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-16 20:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 20:29 ` [Lse-tech] " Rick Lindsley
2003-01-16 23:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 7:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 8:47 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 14:35 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 15:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 15:30 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 16:58 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 20:54 ` NUMA sched -> pooling scheduler (inc HT) Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 21:34 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-19 0:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-17 18:19 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 7:08 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-18 8:12 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 8:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-19 4:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-01-17 17:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 18:11 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 19:04 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-17 19:26 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-18 0:13 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-18 13:31 ` [patch] tunable rebalance rates for sched-2.5.59-B0 Erich Focht
2003-01-18 23:09 ` Erich Focht [this message]
2003-01-20 9:28 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 12:07 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 17:10 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 17:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 19:13 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-20 19:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 21:18 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-D7 Ingo Molnar
2003-01-20 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2003-01-21 1:11 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 3:15 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-22 16:41 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:17 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-22 16:20 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-22 16:35 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-02-03 18:23 ` [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.59-E2 Ingo Molnar
2003-02-03 20:47 ` Robert Love
2003-02-04 9:31 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 17:04 ` [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-21 17:44 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-20 16:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-20 16:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-17 23:09 ` Matthew Dobson
2003-01-16 23:45 ` [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-17 11:10 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-17 14:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-01-16 19:44 ` John Bradford
2003-01-14 16:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-01-15 0:05 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-15 7:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-01-14 5:50 ` [Lse-tech] Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach Michael Hohnbaum
2003-01-14 16:52 ` Andrew Theurer
2003-01-14 15:13 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-14 10:56 ` Erich Focht
2003-01-11 14:43 ` [Lse-tech] Minature NUMA scheduler Bill Davidsen
2003-01-12 23:24 ` Erich Focht
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=200301190009.32245.efocht@ess.nec.de \
--to=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).