From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753303Ab3A1HQa (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 02:16:30 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:57001 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751948Ab3A1HQ1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 02:16:27 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,550,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="277338474" Message-ID: <510625FA.1060409@intel.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:17:14 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: Borislav Petkov , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling References: <1358996820-23036-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130124094439.GB13463@pd.tnic> <51014E34.60309@intel.com> <510493E4.8060602@intel.com> <20130127104039.GC8894@pd.tnic> <51060A6D.4090208@intel.com> <1359355782.5783.59.camel@marge.simpson.net> In-Reply-To: <1359355782.5783.59.camel@marge.simpson.net> 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 01/28/2013 02:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:19 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >>>> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, >>>> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads >>>> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear >>>> performance change found. >>> >>> Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is >>> there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions >>> with the bunch of benchmarks. >>> >>>> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, >>>> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever >>>> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving >>>> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change. >>> >>> I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit >>> when saving power... >>> >> >> BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master. >> The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy. >> The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical. > > That makes sense. How the numa scheduling numbers compare to mainline? > Do you have all three available, mainline, and tip w. w/o powersaving > policy? > I once caught 20~40% performance increasing on sched numa VS mainline 3.7-rc5. but have no baseline to compare balance/powersaving performance since lower data are acceptable for balance/powersaving and tip/master changes too quickly to follow up at that time. :) > -Mike > > -- Thanks Alex