From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org,
preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
efault@gmx.de, pjt@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, arjan@linux.intel.com,
len.brown@intel.com, corbet@lwn.net, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC] Comparison of power-efficient scheduling patch sets
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:17:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51A7FA14.70902@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130530134718.GB32728@e103034-lin>
On 05/30/2013 09:47 PM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A number of patch sets related to power-efficient scheduling have been
> posted over the last couple of months. Most of them do not have much
> data to back them up, so I decided to do some testing.
>
> Common for all of the patch sets that I have tested, except one, is that
> they attempt to pack tasks on as few cpus as possible to allow the
> remaining cpus to enter deeper sleep states - a strategy that should
> make sense on most platforms that support per-cpu power gating and
> multi-socket machines.
>
> Kernel: 3.9
>
> Patch sets:
> rlb-v4: sched: use runnable load based balance (Alex Shi)
> <https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/27/13>
Thanks for the valuable comparison!
The runnable load balance target is performance. It is still try to
disperse tasks to as much as possible CPUs. :)
The latest v7 version remove the 6th patch(wake_affine change) in v4.
and plus fix a slept time double counting issue, and remove
blocked_load_avg in tg load.
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1498988
Enjoy!
> pas-v7: sched: power aware scheduling (Alex Shi)
> <https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/3/732>
We still have some internal discussion on this patch set before update
it. Sorry for response late on this patchset!
> pst-v3: sched: packing small tasks (Vincent Guittot)
> <https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/22/183>
> pst-v4: sched: packing small tasks (Vincent Guittot)
> <https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/25/396>
>
> Configuration:
> pas-v7: Set to "powersaving" mode.
> pst-v4: Set to "Full" packing mode.
>
> Platform:
> ARM TC2 (test-chip), 2xCortex-A15 + 3xCortex-A7. Cortex-A15s disabled.
>
> Measurement technique:
> Time spent non-idle (not in idle state) for each cpu based on cpuidle
> ftrace events. TC2 does not have per-core power-gating, so packing
> inside the A7 cluster does not lead to any significant power savings.
> Note that any product grade hardware (TC2 is a test-chip) will very
> likely have per-core power-gating, so in those cases packing will have
> an appreciable effect on power savings.
> Measuring non-idle time rather than power should give a more clear idea
> about the effect of the patch sets given that the idle back-end is
> highly implementation specific.
>
> Benchmarks:
> audio playback (Android): 30s mp3 file playback on Android.
> bbench+audio (Android): Web page rendering while doing mp3 playback.
> andebench_native (Android): Android benchmark running in native mode.
> cyclictest: Short periodic tasks.
>
> Results:
> Two runs for each patch set.
>
> audio playback (Android) SMP
> non-idle % cpu 0 cpu 1 cpu 2
> 3.9_1 11.96 2.86 2.48
> 3.9_2 12.64 2.81 1.88
> rlb-v4_1 12.61 2.44 1.90
> rlb-v4_2 12.45 2.44 1.90
> pas-v7_1 16.17 0.03 0.24
> pas-v7_2 16.08 0.28 0.07
> pst-v3_1 15.18 2.76 1.70
> pst-v3_2 15.13 0.80 0.38
> pst-v4_1 16.14 0.05 0.00
> pst-v4_2 16.34 0.06 0.00
>
> bbench+audio (Android) SMP
> non-idle % cpu 0 cpu 1 cpu 2 render time
> 3.9_1 25.00 20.73 21.22 812
> 3.9_2 24.29 19.78 22.34 795
> rlb-v4_1 23.84 19.36 22.74 782
> rlb-v4_2 24.07 19.36 22.74 797
> pas-v7_1 28.29 17.86 16.01 869
> pas-v7_2 28.62 18.54 15.05 908
> pst-v3_1 29.14 20.59 21.72 830
> pst-v3_2 27.69 18.81 20.06 830
> pst-v4_1 42.20 13.63 2.29 880
> pst-v4_2 41.56 14.40 2.17 935
>
> andebench_native (8 threads) (Android) SMP
> non-idle % cpu 0 cpu 1 cpu 2 Score
> 3.9_1 99.22 98.88 99.61 4139
> 3.9_2 99.56 99.31 99.46 4148
> rlb-v4_1 99.49 99.61 99.53 4153
> rlb-v4_2 99.56 99.61 99.53 4149
> pas-v7_1 99.53 99.59 99.29 4149
> pas-v7_2 99.42 99.63 99.48 4150
> pst-v3_1 97.89 99.33 99.42 4097
> pst-v3_2 99.16 99.62 99.42 4097
> pst-v4_1 99.34 99.01 99.59 4146
> pst-v4_2 99.49 99.52 99.20 4146
>
> cyclictest SMP
> non-idle % cpu 0 cpu 1 cpu 2
> 3.9_1 9.13 8.88 8.41
> 3.9_2 10.27 8.02 6.30
> rlb-v4_1 8.88 8.09 8.11
> rlb-v4_2 8.49 8.09 8.11
> pas-v7_1 10.20 0.02 11.50
> pas-v7_2 7.86 14.31 0.02
> pst-v3_1 20.44 8.68 7.97
> pst-v3_2 20.41 0.78 1.00
> pst-v4_1 21.32 0.21 0.05
> pst-v4_2 21.56 0.21 0.04
>
> Overall, pas-v7 seems to do a fairly good job at packing. The idle time
> distribution seems to be somewhere between pst-v3 and the more
> aggressive pst-v4 for all the benchmarks. pst-v4 manages to keep two
> cpus nearly idle (<0.25% non-idle) for both cyclictest and audio, which
> is better than both pst-v3 and pas-v7. pas-v7 fails to pack cyclictest.
> Packing does come at at cost which can be seen for bbench+audio, where
> pst-v3 and rlb-v4 get better render times than pas-v7 and pst-v4 which
> do more aggressive packing. rlb-v4 does not pack, it is only included
> for reference.
>
> From a packing perspective pst-v4 seems to do the best job for the
> workloads that I have tested on ARM TC2. The less aggressive packing in
> pst-v3 may be a better choice for in terms of performance.
>
> I'm well aware that these tests are heavily focused on mobile workloads.
> I would therefore encourage people to share your test results for your
> workloads on your platforms to complete the picture. Comments are also
> welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Morten
>
>
--
Thanks
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-31 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-30 13:47 [RFC] Comparison of power-efficient scheduling patch sets Morten Rasmussen
2013-05-31 1:17 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2013-05-31 8:23 ` Alex Shi
2013-05-31 10:52 ` power-efficient scheduling design Ingo Molnar
2013-06-03 14:59 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-03 15:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-04 15:03 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-07 6:26 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-20 15:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-06-05 9:56 ` Amit Kucheria
2013-06-07 6:03 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-07 14:51 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-07 18:08 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-07 17:36 ` David Lang
2013-06-09 4:33 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-08 11:28 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-08 14:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-09 3:42 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-09 22:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-10 16:25 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-06-12 0:27 ` David Lang
2013-06-12 1:48 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-12 9:48 ` Amit Kucheria
2013-06-12 16:22 ` David Lang
2013-06-12 10:20 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-12 15:24 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-12 17:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-12 9:50 ` Daniel Lezcano
2013-06-12 16:30 ` David Lang
2013-06-11 0:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-06-13 4:32 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-09 4:23 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-06-07 15:23 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-14 16:05 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-17 11:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-18 1:37 ` David Lang
2013-06-18 10:23 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-18 17:39 ` David Lang
2013-06-19 12:39 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-18 15:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-18 17:47 ` David Lang
2013-06-18 19:36 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-19 15:39 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-19 17:00 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-19 17:08 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-21 8:50 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-21 15:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-21 15:38 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-21 21:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-21 21:34 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-23 23:32 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-06-24 10:07 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-24 15:26 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-24 21:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-06-24 23:10 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-06-18 19:06 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-21 15:06 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-06-23 10:55 ` Ingo Molnar
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=51A7FA14.70902@intel.com \
--to=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).