linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
	"Tim Chen" <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
	"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	kerrnel@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:17:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <407b6589-1801-20b5-e3b7-d7458370cfc0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190218204020.GV32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 18/02/19 21:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:49:10AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:40 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> However; whichever way around you turn this cookie; it is expensive and nasty.
>>
>> Do you (or anybody else) have numbers for real loads?
>>
>> Because performance is all that matters. If performance is bad, then
>> it's pointless, since just turning off SMT is the answer.
> 
> Not for these patches; they stopped crashing only yesterday and I
> cleaned them up and send them out.
> 
> The previous version; which was more horrible; but L1TF complete, was
> between OK-ish and horrible depending on the number of VMEXITs a
> workload had.
>
> If there were close to no VMEXITs, it beat smt=off, if there were lots
> of VMEXITs it was far far worse. Supposedly hosting people try their
> very bestest to have no VMEXITs so it mostly works for them (with the
> obvious exception of single VCPU guests).

If you are giving access to dedicated cores to guests, you also let them
do PAUSE/HLT/MWAIT without vmexits and the host just thinks it's a CPU
bound workload.

In any case, IIUC what you are looking for is:

1) take a benchmark that *is* helped by SMT, this will be something CPU
bound.

2) compare two runs, one without SMT and without core scheduler, and one
with SMT+core scheduler.

3) find out whether performance is helped by SMT despite the increased
overhead of the core scheduler

Do you want some other load in the host, so that the scheduler actually
does do something?  Or is the point just that you show that the
performance isn't affected when the scheduler does not have anything to
do (which should be obvious, but having numbers is always better)?

Paolo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-02-22 12:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 99+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-18 16:56 [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/16] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/16] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:13   ` Phil Auld
2019-02-19 16:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19 16:37       ` Phil Auld
2019-03-18 15:41   ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-20  2:29     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-21 21:20       ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-22 13:34         ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 20:59           ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-23  0:06         ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-27  1:02           ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-29 13:35           ` Julien Desfossez
2019-03-29 22:23             ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-01 21:35               ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-03 20:16                 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-05  1:30                   ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-02  7:42               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-22 23:28       ` Tim Chen
2019-03-22 23:44         ` Tim Chen
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/16] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/16] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/16] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/16] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/16] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/16] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/16] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/16] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]   ` <20190402064612.GA46500@aaronlu>
2019-04-02  8:28     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-02 13:20       ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-05 14:55       ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:09         ` Tim Chen
2019-04-10  4:36           ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:18             ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-11  2:11               ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-10 14:44             ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11  3:05               ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-11  9:19                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10  8:06           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 19:58             ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-04-15 16:59             ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-16 13:43       ` Aaron Lu
2019-04-09 18:38   ` Julien Desfossez
2019-04-10 15:01     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11  0:11     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-04-19  8:40       ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-19 23:16         ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/16] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 15/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:19   ` Valentin Schneider
2019-02-21 16:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 16:47       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:28         ` Valentin Schneider
2019-04-04  8:31       ` Aubrey Li
2019-04-06  1:36         ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-18 16:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 16/16] sched: Debug bits Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-18 17:49 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/16] sched: Core scheduling Linus Torvalds
2019-02-18 20:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-19  0:29     ` Linus Torvalds
2019-02-19 15:15       ` Ingo Molnar
2019-02-22 12:17     ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2019-02-22 14:20       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-22 19:26         ` Tim Chen
2019-02-26  8:26           ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-27  7:54             ` Aubrey Li
2019-02-21  2:53   ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-21 14:03     ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-21 18:44       ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22  0:34       ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-02-22 12:45   ` Mel Gorman
2019-02-22 16:10     ` Mel Gorman
2019-03-08 19:44     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11  4:23       ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-11 18:34         ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-11 23:33           ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12  0:20             ` Greg Kerr
2019-03-12  0:47               ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-12  7:33               ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-12  7:45             ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-13  5:55               ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14  0:35                 ` Tim Chen
2019-03-14  5:30                   ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-14  6:07                     ` Li, Aubrey
2019-03-18  6:56             ` Aubrey Li
2019-03-12 19:07           ` Pawan Gupta
2019-03-26  7:32       ` Aaron Lu
2019-03-26  7:56         ` Aaron Lu
2019-02-19 22:07 ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-20  9:42   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-20 18:33     ` Greg Kerr
2019-02-22 14:10       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-07 22:06         ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-02-20 18:43     ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-01  2:54 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-03-14 15:28 ` 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=407b6589-1801-20b5-e3b7-d7458370cfc0@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kerrnel@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --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 \
    /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).