Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: Age the average idle time

From: Mel Gorman
Date: Thu Jun 17 2021 - 11:40:14 EST

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:01:16AM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > Thanks, so far no serious objection :)
> >
> > The latest results as I see them have been copied to
> >
> > They will move from here if the patch is accepted to 5-assembly replacing
> > 3-perf-test. This naming is part of my workflow for evaluating topic
> > branches separetly and then putting them together for another round
> > of testing.
> >
> > NAS shows small differences but NAS would see limited impact from the
> > patch. Specjbb shows small losses and some minor gains which is unfortunate
> > but the workload tends to see small gains and losses all the time.
> > redis is a mixed bag but has some wins. hackbench is the main benefit
> > because it's wakeup intensive and tends to overload machines where deep
> > searches hurt.
> >
> > There are other results in there if you feel like digging around
> > such as sched-core tested with no processes getting tagged with prctl
> >
> >
> Thanks for the links. It's cool to see what your results dashboard looks like.
> It's really small, what are you plotting in those heat maps?
> It's hard for me to publish the results that come from our testing (web based
> on intranet) but we don't see any major differences with this patch. There
> are some gains here and there mostly balanced by some loses. Overall it comes
> out basically as a wash across our main performance test workload.

Ok, that's unfortunate. It's also somewhat surprising but then again, I
don't know what tests were executed.

> It'll be interesting to see if it effects a sensitive, proprietary perf test
> suite from a European company with a 3 letter name :)

I don't think it's worth the effort if it's failing microbenchmarks at
the moment.

Mel Gorman