On 8/2/19 8:37 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote: > We tested both Aaron's and Tim's patches and here are our results. > > Test setup: > - 2 1-thread sysbench, one running the cpu benchmark, the other one the > mem benchmark > - both started at the same time > - both are pinned on the same core (2 hardware threads) > - 10 30-seconds runs > - test script: https://paste.debian.net/plainh/834cf45c > - only showing the CPU events/sec (higher is better) > - tested 4 tag configurations: > - no tag > - sysbench mem untagged, sysbench cpu tagged > - sysbench mem tagged, sysbench cpu untagged > - both tagged with a different tag > - "Alone" is the sysbench CPU running alone on the core, no tag > - "nosmt" is both sysbench pinned on the same hardware thread, no tag > - "Tim's full patchset + sched" is an experiment with Tim's patchset > combined with Aaron's "hack patch" to get rid of the remaining deep > idle cases > - In all test cases, both tasks can run simultaneously (which was not > the case without those patches), but the standard deviation is a > pretty good indicator of the fairness/consistency.
Thanks for testing the patches and giving such detailed data. I came to realize that for my scheme, the accumulated deficit of forced idle could be wiped out in one execution of a task on the forced idle cpu, with the update of the min_vruntime, even if the execution time could be far less than the accumulated deficit. That's probably one reason my scheme didn't achieve fairness. Tim
