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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D544EC43218 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 14:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6EB208C2 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 14:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bBCvnOjc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726222AbfD0OFN (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:05:13 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f179.google.com ([209.85.208.179]:34957 "EHLO mail-lj1-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725942AbfD0OFN (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Apr 2019 10:05:13 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f179.google.com with SMTP id z26so5482124ljj.2 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 07:05:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=D5JBJtaA8+xU/ta8vSAI+EZKEYF6gg1DC6VLGtaKsrU=; b=bBCvnOjceZyWqo2j9QVR9UZnuJz5RXf4yYvhal6JIK5vTbSR7dTeEeA1i/biXWnkhG NaPWVrPTWFdtlHI748HIIQfPSp6RaSd3rc1L4WvN/VLDjAYvyuiIeSu3OIAgMhlCMY/t hcuyaBDGMz4YIpppAsZuyd2/JJSBE7cuEk1of67rMa5P7HrGL+6h/l/BbaarzEeYZlGB 43kbVfhjTHOarh6ODxQvLcaRsqRbue3uNwaHaokvGv+1G62NXA50LTIoJzUkZQkS5HVY s1jkwkxIIo1Qjb8KDXVSvFA04VrekpMvGyGhqJkq/1Qh+GoROuE7+IOpgdUvPgDyS0w3 kxHA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=D5JBJtaA8+xU/ta8vSAI+EZKEYF6gg1DC6VLGtaKsrU=; b=QOPET+cIPmY/HmnOyBTR8Xr4Fl6xfPtbc2weXSImI//zNlazR0QTbsIPANN4UM3Brx qFguOBeDqQZBEvkuphsvL+IhzoYPLi8sT5GbJP1wgcVeQpZJg+Q2opGMinFdlXF1zft3 8f1BIfvFydqaulPPMMlSeQ8G1+326WsfbucSqA8LpRmBJNhgSrbviLjSrCMekVi5f0iU BHvKcP6UU2x+Qw3on4v2QMqKBP8QHbB/QB+MPqEMNI7gJu312hSS5Qw/ZXdsXZgRjykT 0GcP4d5LS8i/KH38j1BoFy4ZLCi/cmTHdB+tHK24325zxZQEA+omfsQ5b1af28qUObb6 D5eA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWtINWD2kPkI//NPrvjqkpkwuCt8/TgDFCHmJfrF2QhTDcWyaTq moyOpEfRmpmjBmjE1BdUn5w32eJH1YYh2jO1HJ8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxiFZQ9foKQ6fslbmxkGdkfQQWbcjv1U+5/EuxVGrfQm+4e4iUVUVg9qCIrPcD7T693eP3KhXr9V8y10/VGB0Q= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:984d:: with SMTP id e13mr5502187ljj.61.1556373910808; Sat, 27 Apr 2019 07:05:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190424140013.GA14594@sinkpad> <20190425095508.GA8387@gmail.com> <20190427091716.GC99668@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20190427091716.GC99668@gmail.com> From: Aubrey Li Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 22:04:59 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Julien Desfossez , Vineeth Remanan Pillai , Nishanth Aravamudan , Peter Zijlstra , Tim Chen , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Turner , Linus Torvalds , Linux List Kernel Mailing , Subhra Mazumdar , =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= , Kees Cook , Greg Kerr , Phil Auld , Aaron Lu , Valentin Schneider , Mel Gorman , Pawan Gupta , Paolo Bonzini Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Aubrey Li wrote: > > > I have the same environment setup above, for nosmt cases, I used > > /sys interface Thomas mentioned, below is the result: > > > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 1/1 1.987( 1.97%) 2.043( 1.76%) -2.84% 1.985( 1.70%) 0.12% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 2/2 2.074( 1.16%) 2.057( 2.09%) 0.81% 2.072( 0.77%) 0.10% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 4/4 2.140( 0.00%) 2.138( 0.49%) 0.09% 2.137( 0.89%) 0.12% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 8/8 2.140( 0.00%) 2.144( 0.53%) -0.17% 2.140( 0.00%) 0.00% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 16/16 2.361( 2.99%) 2.369( 2.65%) -0.30% 2.406( 2.53%) -1.87% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 32/32 5.032( 8.68%) 3.485( 0.49%) 30.76% 6.002(27.21%) -19.27% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 64/64 7.577(34.35%) 3.972(23.18%) 47.57% 18.235(14.14%) -140.68% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 128/128 24.639(14.28%) 27.440( 8.24%) -11.37% 34.746( 6.92%) -41.02% > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/- > > 256/256 38.797( 8.59%) 44.067(16.20%) -13.58% 42.536( 7.57%) -9.64% > > What do these numbers mean? Are these latencies, i.e. lower is better? Yeah, like above setup, I run sysbench(Non-AVX task, NA) and gemmbench (AVX512 task, AVX) in different level utilizatoin. The machine has 104 CPUs, so nosmt has 52 CPUs. These numbers are 95th percentile latency of sysbench, lower is better. Thanks, -Aubrey