From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDB6C00140 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 13:50:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232850AbiHJNuY (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:50:24 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57860 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232836AbiHJNuT (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:50:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57BEB1F5 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 06:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id o5-20020a17090a3d4500b001ef76490983so2174894pjf.2 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 06:50:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=eDHehK2dT1EAEXS+z232qVuqC1dsyPdCC8aOihNHjpI=; b=WyeKjiizW06I7/Wn6uNcAXOEm+otebFXGH1bMuw60y2l1PwicyVIfgwvVc4rAzG3zL nTpO3ag9QcuJ3zsDWPh4x35I4/1juj8Ce5VJeE4od7PS+ztnFGtWB9giIFUlVe4AKSTV lhRiPcDuoYtCyMMBbygKEnzLnzrmtRVZ/PFFW/Xgwq/Lcka/S8BwseJyyyMROVR0WZYo 7ebV7Dp5C2EM4qi3k2e0dfhlKtuqgP3jem7GBz/YhH3IOAmPNmbBa6Mue8BXAGzuYzpC k8izK1YgCzm4r9OOkIGAJqSmx6lBxaoC6S56z1aLJRl4gnrhca//ZddeU5LKm3rlM6xa RVUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=eDHehK2dT1EAEXS+z232qVuqC1dsyPdCC8aOihNHjpI=; b=z9kXgSNqOZVIZApGSEY1IAoDM7omxfZc66yHadix++mVNwDQMFlXGT/q5TrMQo1/11 4yrN91vDmyJoXwaE5EK5RSJo/517MkEXzFVKJoS2JHoi8HkbtcKVNJv57PnAJdvqQtAL e6ICwfg9+RU5wrPtT25MGVZZcDfQnHfpacRtMlRgdWdVHteI6bEld1vTj0wdwRC6m8Tv K8arA+LfxOcjZMx3g38jXodsvVtzOWKhazqyM0tqnTA3vcROHe8sIGzlXEr4oULz9gmB Wq4Wp43zVRZjp3Tkrdacr7+7kt5HIMLpMPAmTGJGgyKwM1AFJVvCv9ijH4YTUdJi5reg orjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1PNRP+tLxZoBcMcNNF50UStA786OYJPhKg/kLjsuRyRMTIiOQq g980zN7+oF+nEBwucVjJyQVcrlEgInyvFLR8x2ZvmH5wBQY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7z1Tl/FgN8Gf9i412hFHQM0Q9Hk9vVEfuUiU8R1pUNnIcqyWZtllI28j52JaL3RIjjszmPexHEEZAYVUvPyv0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8502:b0:16c:c5c5:a198 with SMTP id bj2-20020a170902850200b0016cc5c5a198mr27576448plb.88.1660139418343; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 06:50:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220712082036.5130-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> <20220712082036.5130-2-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> In-Reply-To: <20220712082036.5130-2-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com> From: Chen Yu Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 21:50:06 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: ignore SIS_UTIL when has idle core To: Abel Wu Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Vincent Guittot , Josh Don , Chen Yu , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 4:45 PM Abel Wu wrote: > > When SIS_UTIL is enabled, SIS domain scan will be skipped if > the LLC is overloaded. Since the overloaded status is checked > in the load balancing at LLC level, the interval is llc_size > miliseconds. The duration might be long enough to affect the > overall system throughput if idle cores are out of reach in > SIS domain scan. > > Signed-off-by: Abel Wu > --- > Tested schbench and netperf on latest 5.19 vanilla, it seems that there is latency performance improvement when the load is low in schbench, and no performance difference on netperf. ./report.py -b 5.19.0+ -c 5.19.0-skip-sis-util+ -t schbench schbench ======== case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%) normal mthread-1 1.00 ( 0.00) +7.69 ( 0.00) normal mthread-2 1.00 ( 0.00) +13.24 ( 0.00) normal mthread-4 1.00 ( 0.00) -5.88 ( 0.00) normal mthread-8 1.00 ( 0.00) -0.25 ( 0.00) ./report.py -b 5.19.0+ -c 5.19.0-skip-sis-util+ -t netperf netperf ======= case load baseline(std%) compare%( std%) TCP_RR thread-28 1.00 ( 0.62) +0.15 ( 0.55) TCP_RR thread-56 1.00 ( 0.42) -0.26 ( 0.40) TCP_RR thread-84 1.00 ( 0.29) +0.39 ( 0.29) TCP_RR thread-112 1.00 ( 0.22) +0.44 ( 0.23) TCP_RR thread-140 1.00 ( 0.17) +0.33 ( 0.18) TCP_RR thread-168 1.00 ( 0.17) +0.19 ( 0.16) TCP_RR thread-196 1.00 ( 13.65) -0.62 ( 14.83) TCP_RR thread-224 1.00 ( 9.80) -0.65 ( 9.67) UDP_RR thread-28 1.00 ( 0.89) +0.92 ( 0.81) UDP_RR thread-56 1.00 ( 0.78) +0.38 ( 0.73) UDP_RR thread-84 1.00 ( 14.03) +0.78 ( 16.85) UDP_RR thread-112 1.00 ( 12.26) -0.42 ( 11.95) UDP_RR thread-140 1.00 ( 9.86) -0.89 ( 6.93) UDP_RR thread-168 1.00 ( 11.62) -0.82 ( 8.80) UDP_RR thread-196 1.00 ( 19.47) +0.42 ( 16.50) UDP_RR thread-224 1.00 ( 18.68) +0.72 ( 18.50) Tested-by: Chen Yu -- Thanks, Chenyu