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

From: Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"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>,
	"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: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:24:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAERHkrs31scmsmTW18bbCj8+NwS+jPg0=SFjFUPP2y0oJCod1w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190429153916.GB26806@pauld.bos.csb>

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:39 PM Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:25:35PM +0800 Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> > |NA/AVX vanilla-SMT     [std% / sem%]     cpu% |coresched-SMT   [std% / sem%]     +/-     cpu% |  no-SMT [std% / sem%]   +/-      cpu% |
> > |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> > |  1/1        508.5     [ 0.2%/ 0.0%]     2.1% |        504.7   [ 1.1%/ 0.1%]    -0.8%    2.1% |   509.0 [ 0.2%/ 0.0%]   0.1%     4.3% |
> > |  2/2       1000.2     [ 1.4%/ 0.1%]     4.1% |       1004.1   [ 1.6%/ 0.2%]     0.4%    4.1% |   997.6 [ 1.2%/ 0.1%]  -0.3%     8.1% |
> > |  4/4       1912.1     [ 1.0%/ 0.1%]     7.9% |       1904.2   [ 1.1%/ 0.1%]    -0.4%    7.9% |  1914.9 [ 1.3%/ 0.1%]   0.1%    15.1% |
> > |  8/8       3753.5     [ 0.3%/ 0.0%]    14.9% |       3748.2   [ 0.3%/ 0.0%]    -0.1%   14.9% |  3751.3 [ 0.4%/ 0.0%]  -0.1%    30.5% |
> > | 16/16      7139.3     [ 2.4%/ 0.2%]    30.3% |       7137.9   [ 1.8%/ 0.2%]    -0.0%   30.3% |  7049.2 [ 2.4%/ 0.2%]  -1.3%    60.4% |
> > | 32/32     10899.0     [ 4.2%/ 0.4%]    60.3% |      10780.3   [ 4.4%/ 0.4%]    -1.1%   55.9% | 10339.2 [ 9.6%/ 0.9%]  -5.1%    97.7% |
> > | 64/64     15086.1     [11.5%/ 1.2%]    97.7% |      14262.0   [ 8.2%/ 0.8%]    -5.5%   82.0% | 11168.7 [22.2%/ 1.7%] -26.0%   100.0% |
> > |128/128    15371.9     [22.0%/ 2.2%]   100.0% |      14675.8   [14.4%/ 1.4%]    -4.5%   82.8% | 10963.9 [18.5%/ 1.4%] -28.7%   100.0% |
> > |256/256    15990.8     [22.0%/ 2.2%]   100.0% |      12227.9   [10.3%/ 1.0%]   -23.5%   73.2% | 10469.9 [19.6%/ 1.7%] -34.5%   100.0% |
> > '--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
> >
>
> That's really nice and clear.
>
> We start to see the penalty for the coresched at 32/32, leaving some cpus more idle than otherwise.
> But it's pretty good overall, for this benchmark at least.
>
> Is this with stock v2 or with any of the fixes posted after? I wonder how much the fixes for
> the race that violates the rule effects this, for example.
>

Yeah, this data is based on v2 without any fixes after.
I also tried some fixes potential to performance impact but no luck so far.
Please let me know if anything I missed.

Thanks,
-Aubrey