From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Cc: "Julien Desfossez" <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
"Vineeth Remanan Pillai" <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
"Nishanth Aravamudan" <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Subhra Mazumdar" <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Greg Kerr" <kerrnel@google.com>, "Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
"Pawan Gupta" <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:33:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190428093304.GA7393@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAERHkrtaU=Y-Lxypu_7uBbe-mJtG-3friz=ZLhV53X4FXHcEyA@mail.gmail.com>
* Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But what we are really interested in are throughput numbers under
> > these three kernel variants, right?
>
> These are sysbench events per second number, higher is better.
>
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 1/1 508.5( 0.2%) 504.7( 1.1%) -0.8% 509.0( 0.2%) 0.1%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 2/2 1000.2( 1.4%) 1004.1( 1.6%) 0.4% 997.6( 1.2%) -0.3%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 4/4 1912.1( 1.0%) 1904.2( 1.1%) -0.4% 1914.9( 1.3%) 0.1%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 8/8 3753.5( 0.3%) 3748.2( 0.3%) -0.1% 3751.3( 0.4%) -0.1%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 16/16 7139.3( 2.4%) 7137.9( 1.8%) -0.0% 7049.2( 2.4%) -1.3%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 32/32 10899.0( 4.2%) 10780.3( 4.4%) -1.1% 10339.2( 9.6%) -5.1%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 64/64 15086.1(11.5%) 14262.0( 8.2%) -5.5% 11168.7(22.2%) -26.0%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 128/128 15371.9(22.0%) 14675.8(14.4%) -4.5% 10963.9(18.5%) -28.7%
> NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> 256/256 15990.8(22.0%) 12227.9(10.3%) -23.5% 10469.9(19.6%) -34.5%
So because I'm a big fan of presenting data in a readable fashion, here
are your results, tabulated:
#
# Sysbench throughput comparison of 3 different kernels at different
# load levels, higher numbers are better:
#
.--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------.
| NA/AVX vanilla-SMT [stddev%] |coresched-SMT [stddev%] +/- | no-SMT [stddev%] +/- |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1/1 508.5 [ 0.2% ] | 504.7 [ 1.1% ] 0.8% | 509.0 [ 0.2% ] 0.1% |
| 2/2 1000.2 [ 1.4% ] | 1004.1 [ 1.6% ] 0.4% | 997.6 [ 1.2% ] 0.3% |
| 4/4 1912.1 [ 1.0% ] | 1904.2 [ 1.1% ] 0.4% | 1914.9 [ 1.3% ] 0.1% |
| 8/8 3753.5 [ 0.3% ] | 3748.2 [ 0.3% ] 0.1% | 3751.3 [ 0.4% ] 0.1% |
| 16/16 7139.3 [ 2.4% ] | 7137.9 [ 1.8% ] 0.0% | 7049.2 [ 2.4% ] 1.3% |
| 32/32 10899.0 [ 4.2% ] | 10780.3 [ 4.4% ] -1.1% | 10339.2 [ 9.6% ] -5.1% |
| 64/64 15086.1 [ 11.5% ] | 14262.0 [ 8.2% ] -5.5% | 11168.7 [ 22.2% ] -26.0% |
| 128/128 15371.9 [ 22.0% ] | 14675.8 [ 14.4% ] -4.5% | 10963.9 [ 18.5% ] -28.7% |
| 256/256 15990.8 [ 22.0% ] | 12227.9 [ 10.3% ] -23.5% | 10469.9 [ 19.6% ] -34.5% |
'--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------'
One major thing that sticks out is that if we compare the stddev numbers
to the +/- comparisons then it's pretty clear that the benchmarks are
very noisy: in all but the last row stddev is actually higher than the
measured effect.
So what does 'stddev' mean here, exactly? The stddev of multipe runs,
i.e. measured run-to-run variance? Or is it some internal metric of the
benchmark?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-28 9:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 109+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-23 16:18 [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/17] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/17] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/17] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/17] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/17] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/17] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/17] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/17] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/17] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-26 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 16:10 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 5:38 ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/17] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 0:08 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-24 20:43 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 22:12 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-25 14:35 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-22 19:52 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 0:17 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-24 20:43 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 3:36 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-10 13:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 6:15 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-01 23:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-05-03 0:06 ` Tim Chen
2019-05-08 15:49 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-08 18:19 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-08 18:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 0:01 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 0:25 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 1:38 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 2:14 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-09 15:10 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-09 17:50 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-05-10 0:09 ` Tim Chen
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/17] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-25 14:26 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-26 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-26 14:19 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-10 15:12 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/17] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 7:13 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-18 15:37 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-20 13:04 ` Phil Auld
2019-05-20 14:04 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-05-21 8:19 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-21 13:24 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/17] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/17] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 23:46 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 14:03 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 14:05 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/17] sched: Wake up sibling if it has something to run Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-26 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 12:36 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-23 16:18 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/17] sched: Debug bits Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-17 17:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-23 18:02 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 Phil Auld
2019-04-23 18:45 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-29 3:53 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-06 19:39 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-08 2:30 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-08 17:49 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-09 2:11 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-15 21:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-23 23:25 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 11:19 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-15 21:39 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-24 13:13 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-24 14:00 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-25 3:15 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-25 9:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 14:46 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-25 18:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 18:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-04-25 19:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-25 21:31 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 10:43 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 18:37 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-26 19:49 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-26 9:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 10:19 ` Mel Gorman
2019-04-27 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-26 14:15 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-26 2:18 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-26 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 3:51 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-27 9:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 14:04 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-27 14:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-27 15:54 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-28 9:33 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-04-28 10:29 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-28 12:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-29 2:17 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-29 6:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-29 13:25 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-29 15:39 ` Phil Auld
2019-04-30 1:24 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-29 16:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-30 1:34 ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-30 4:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-05-18 0:58 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-05-18 1:08 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-04-25 14:36 ` Julien Desfossez
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=20190428093304.GA7393@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=aaron.lwe@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.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).