Re: [PATCH] sched/numa: use runnable_avg to classify node

[Vincent Guittot]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 17:35, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Use runnable_avg to classify numa node state similarly to what is done for
> > normal load balancer. This helps to ensure that numa and normal balancers
> > use the same view of the state of the system.
> >
> > - large arm64system: 2 nodes / 224 CPUs
> > hackbench -l (256000/#grp) -g #grp
> >
> > grp    tip/sched/core         +patchset              improvement
> > 1      14,008(+/- 4,99 %)     13,800(+/- 3.88 %)     1,48 %
> > 4       4,340(+/- 5.35 %)      4.283(+/- 4.85 %)     1,33 %
> > 16      3,357(+/- 0.55 %)      3.359(+/- 0.54 %)    -0,06 %
> > 32      3,050(+/- 0.94 %)      3.039(+/- 1,06 %)     0,38 %
> > 64      2.968(+/- 1,85 %)      3.006(+/- 2.92 %)    -1.27 %
> > 128     3,290(+/-12.61 %)      3,108(+/- 5.97 %)     5.51 %
> > 256     3.235(+/- 3.95 %)      3,188(+/- 2.83 %)     1.45 %
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The testing was a mixed bag of wins and losses but wins more than it
> loses. Biggest loss was a 9.04% regression on nas-SP using openmp for
> parallelisation on Zen1. Biggest win was around 8% gain running
> specjbb2005 on Zen2 (with some major gains of up to 55% for some thread
> counts). Most workloads were stable across multiple Intel and AMD
> machines.
>
> There were some oddities in changes in NUMA scanning rate but that is
> likely a side-effect because the locality over time for the same loads
> did not look obviously worse. There was no negative result I could point
> at that was not offset by a positive result elsewhere. Given it's not
> a univeral win or loss, matching numa and lb balancing as closely as
> possible is best so
>
> Reviewed-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>

Thanks.

I will try to reproduce the nas-SP test on my setup to see what is going one

Vincent

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs