Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Aubrey Li" <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
	"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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:14:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190429061422.GA20939@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <db7c3e51-d013-b3d9-7bce-c247aa2e7144@linux.intel.com>

* Li, Aubrey <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> > I suspect it's pretty low, below 1% for all rows?
> 
> Hope my this mail box works for this...
> 
> .-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> |NA/AVX vanilla-SMT     [std% / sem%] | coresched-SMT   [std% / sem%]     +/- |  no-SMT [std% / sem%]    +/-  |
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |  1/1        508.5     [ 0.2%/ 0.0%] |         504.7   [ 1.1%/ 0.1%]    -0.8%|   509.0 [ 0.2%/ 0.0%]    0.1% |
> |  2/2       1000.2     [ 1.4%/ 0.1%] |        1004.1   [ 1.6%/ 0.2%]     0.4%|   997.6 [ 1.2%/ 0.1%]   -0.3% |
> |  4/4       1912.1     [ 1.0%/ 0.1%] |        1904.2   [ 1.1%/ 0.1%]    -0.4%|  1914.9 [ 1.3%/ 0.1%]    0.1% |
> |  8/8       3753.5     [ 0.3%/ 0.0%] |        3748.2   [ 0.3%/ 0.0%]    -0.1%|  3751.3 [ 0.4%/ 0.0%]   -0.1% |
> | 16/16      7139.3     [ 2.4%/ 0.2%] |        7137.9   [ 1.8%/ 0.2%]    -0.0%|  7049.2 [ 2.4%/ 0.2%]   -1.3% |
> | 32/32     10899.0     [ 4.2%/ 0.4%] |       10780.3   [ 4.4%/ 0.4%]    -1.1%| 10339.2 [ 9.6%/ 0.9%]   -5.1% |
> | 64/64     15086.1     [11.5%/ 1.2%] |       14262.0   [ 8.2%/ 0.8%]    -5.5%| 11168.7 [22.2%/ 1.7%]  -26.0% |
> |128/128    15371.9     [22.0%/ 2.2%] |       14675.8   [14.4%/ 1.4%]    -4.5%| 10963.9 [18.5%/ 1.4%]  -28.7% |
> |256/256    15990.8     [22.0%/ 2.2%] |       12227.9   [10.3%/ 1.0%]   -23.5%| 10469.9 [19.6%/ 1.7%]  -34.5% |
> '-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'

Perfectly presented, thank you very much!

My final questin would be about the environment:

> Skylake server, 2 numa nodes, 104 CPUs (HT on)

Is the typical nr_running value the sum of 'NA+AVX', i.e. is it ~256 
threads for the 128/128 row for example - or is it 128 parallel tasks?

I.e. showing the approximate CPU thread-load figure column would be very 
useful too, where '50%' shows half-loaded, '100%' fully-loaded, '200%' 
over-saturated, etc. - for each row?

Thanks,

	Ingo