Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg andpower awareness scheduling

[Alex Shi]

On 01/27/2013 06:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 05:36:25AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> With aim7 compute on 4 node 40 core box, I see stable throughput
>> improvement at tasks = nr_cores and below w. balance and powersaving. 
>>
>>          3.8.0-performance                                  3.8.0-balance                                      3.8.0-powersaving
>> Tasks    jobs/min  jti  jobs/min/task      real       cpu   jobs/min  jti  jobs/min/task      real       cpu   jobs/min  jti  jobs/min/task      real       cpu
>>     1      432.86  100       432.8571     14.00      3.99     433.48  100       433.4764     13.98      3.97     433.17  100       433.1665     13.99      3.98
>>     1      437.23  100       437.2294     13.86      3.85     436.60  100       436.5994     13.88      3.86     435.66  100       435.6578     13.91      3.90
>>     1      434.10  100       434.0974     13.96      3.95     436.29  100       436.2851     13.89      3.89     436.29  100       436.2851     13.89      3.87
>>     5     2400.95   99       480.1902     12.62     12.49    2554.81   98       510.9612     11.86      7.55    2487.68   98       497.5369     12.18      8.22
>>     5     2341.58   99       468.3153     12.94     13.95    2578.72   99       515.7447     11.75      7.25    2527.11   99       505.4212     11.99      7.90
>>     5     2350.66   99       470.1319     12.89     13.66    2600.86   99       520.1717     11.65      7.09    2508.28   98       501.6556     12.08      8.24
>>    10     4291.78   99       429.1785     14.12     40.14    5334.51   99       533.4507     11.36     11.13    5183.92   98       518.3918     11.69     12.15
>>    10     4334.76   99       433.4764     13.98     38.70    5311.13   99       531.1131     11.41     11.23    5215.15   99       521.5146     11.62     12.53
>>    10     4273.62   99       427.3625     14.18     40.29    5287.96   99       528.7958     11.46     11.46    5144.31   98       514.4312     11.78     12.32
>>    20     8487.39   94       424.3697     14.28     63.14   10594.41   99       529.7203     11.44     23.72   10575.92   99       528.7958     11.46     22.08
>>    20     8387.54   97       419.3772     14.45     77.01   10575.92   98       528.7958     11.46     23.41   10520.83   99       526.0417     11.52     21.88
>>    20     8713.16   95       435.6578     13.91     55.10   10659.63   99       532.9815     11.37     24.17   10539.13   99       526.9565     11.50     22.13
>>    40    16786.70   99       419.6676     14.44    170.08   19469.88   98       486.7470     12.45     60.78   19967.05   98       499.1763     12.14     51.40
>>    40    16728.78   99       418.2195     14.49    172.96   19627.53   98       490.6883     12.35     65.26   20386.88   98       509.6720     11.89     46.91
>>    40    16763.49   99       419.0871     14.46    171.42   20033.06   98       500.8264     12.10     51.44   20682.59   98       517.0648     11.72     42.45
> 
> Ok, this is sick. How is balance and powersaving better than perf? Both
> have much more jobs per minute than perf; is that because we do pack
> much more tasks per cpu with balance and powersaving?

Maybe it is due to the lazy balancing on balance/powersaving. You can
check the CS times in /proc/pid/status.
> 
> Thanks.
> 


-- 
Thanks
    Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/