From: Michael Larabel <Michael@phoronix.com> To: Giovanni Gherdovich <email@example.com>, Borislav Petkov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>, Peter Zijlstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <email@example.com>, Viresh Kumar <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jon Grimm <Jon.Grimm@amd.com>, Nathan Fontenot <Nathan.Fontenot@amd.com>, Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>, Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>, Suthikulpanit Suravee <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com>, Mel Gorman <email@example.com>, Pu Wen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Juri Lelli <email@example.com>, Vincent Guittot <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] AMD EPYC: fix schedutil perf regression (freq-invariance) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 16:30:57 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> From ongoing tests of this patch, it still certainly shows to address most of the Linux 5.11 performance regression previously encountered when using Schedutil. Additionally, for a number of workloads where not seeing a regression from 5.10 to 5.11 Git is still showing even better performance with this patch. The power monitoring on the AMD EPYC server is showing higher power spikes but the average power consumption rate is roughly comparable to that of Linux 5.11 Git, which is higher than 5.10 by just about 3%. So this patch still seems to be working out well and indeed taking care of some wide losses seen otherwise on Linux 5.11 when using Schedutil on AMD Zen2/Zen3. Still have some other tests running but so far no unexpected results. Michael AMD EPYC 7F72 2P On an EPYC 7F72 2P server across 147 test cases I am finding the patched Linux 5.11 kernel to be just over 1% faster than 5.10 stable compared to the unpatched 5.11 Git being just behind 5.10. For the workloads on that server where Linux 5.11 is slower with Schedutil, the patch indeed is largely addressing that regression and also providing other improvements. During that testing, the amd_energy interface was monitored. Linux 5.11 with Schedutil AMD freq invariance did show on average 10 Watts (~3.7%) higher power consumption on average than Linux 5.10 with Schedutil. But with this patch, that average is still basically the same. The peak power consumption during any of the tests was higher at 530~549 Watts compared to 501 Watts with Linux 5.10. Overall the performance is looking good but given amd_energy still not working for consumer models, I don't have much power data to share at the moment. Ryzen 9 5950X Expanding on the prior testing with the 5950X, I ran some follow-up tests. Of 221 test cases there, the current Linux 5.11 Git performance came around 2% slower on a geo mean basis than Linux 5.10 while the patched performance pulls it to ~2.5% faster than 5.10. There still are some cases where Linux 5.10 is faster, but overall at least the patched Linux 5.11 performance doesn't show nearly as many regressions. In a number of test cases, the Linux 5.11 patched performance is outright better than Linux 5.10 even where 5.11 (un-patched) hadn't regressed or by that much. Ryzen 5 4500U For something at the lower end of the spectrum I also ran a number of tests on a Ryzen 5 4500U notebook. Linux 5.11 (unpatched) doesn't see as many regressions as on the larger systems but still the patched performance did help in a number of tests, particularly around graphics/gaming. In the heavier multi-core core tests are still a number of cases where Linux 5.10 is faster than patched/unpatched 5.11. The patched kernel in those 90 tests came out to being about 4% faster than 5.10. (Result highlights below, results with little change set to hidden by default.)  https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2101248-HA-AMDEPYC7F52&grs&hlc=1&hnr=1&hlc=1  https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2101242-HA-RYZEN959530&grs&hlc=1  https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2101232-PTS-RENOIRLI89&grs&hnr=1&hlc=1 On 1/22/21 2:40 PM, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote: > Michael Larabel from Phoronix.com graciously tested v1, see results at: > > AMD EPYC 7702 - > https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2101210-PTS-LINUX51178 > > AMD Ryzen 9 5950X - > https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2101212-HA-RYZEN959566 > > The reported regression is recovered, and some workloads even report an > improvement over the v5.10 results. > > Thanks Michael for the feedback! > > > v1 at https://firstname.lastname@example.org/ > > Changes wrt v1: > > - move code around so that it builds for non-x86 architectures too > > Giovanni Gherdovich (1): > x86,sched: On AMD EPYC set freq_max = max_boost in schedutil invariant > formula > > drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 ++ > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 +++ > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 8 +++- > 4 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-24 22:50 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-01-22 20:40 Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-01-22 20:40 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] x86,sched: On AMD EPYC set freq_max = max_boost in schedutil invariant formula Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-01-25 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-26 9:28 ` Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-01-26 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-02-02 18:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-02 19:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-03 9:56 ` Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-02-02 18:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-01-25 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-26 9:09 ` Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-01-26 9:31 ` Mel Gorman 2021-01-26 10:05 ` Peter Zijlstra [not found] ` <email@example.com> 2021-02-02 14:17 ` Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-02-02 18:21 ` Peter Zijlstra 2021-02-02 18:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-02 19:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-02 18:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-02 19:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-03 8:39 ` Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-02-03 13:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2021-02-03 9:12 ` Giovanni Gherdovich 2021-02-03 6:04 ` Viresh Kumar 2021-01-24 22:30 ` Michael Larabel [this message] 2021-01-25 8:34 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] AMD EPYC: fix schedutil perf regression (freq-invariance) Peter Zijlstra 2021-01-26 9:01 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Jon.Grimm@amd.com \ --cc=Nathan.Fontenot@amd.com \ --cc=Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com \ --cc=Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com \ --cc=Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] AMD EPYC: fix schedutil perf regression (freq-invariance)' \ /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
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).