On 01/12/2013 04:01 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 12/27/2012 02:08 PM, Michael Wang wrote: >>> This patch set is trying to simplify the select_task_rq_fair() with >>> schedule balance map. >>> >>> After get rid of the complex code and reorganize the logical, pgbench show >>> the improvement. >>> >>> Prev: >>> | db_size | clients | tps | >>> +---------+---------+-------+ >>> | 22 MB | 1 | 4437 | >>> | 22 MB | 16 | 51351 | >>> | 22 MB | 32 | 49959 | >>> | 7484 MB | 1 | 4078 | >>> | 7484 MB | 16 | 44681 | >>> | 7484 MB | 32 | 42463 | >>> | 15 GB | 1 | 3992 | >>> | 15 GB | 16 | 44107 | >>> | 15 GB | 32 | 41797 | >>> >>> Post: >>> | db_size | clients | tps | >>> +---------+---------+-------+ >>> | 22 MB | 1 | 11053 | +149.11% >>> | 22 MB | 16 | 55671 | +8.41% >>> | 22 MB | 32 | 52596 | +5.28% >>> | 7483 MB | 1 | 8180 | +100.59% >>> | 7483 MB | 16 | 48392 | +8.31% >>> | 7483 MB | 32 | 44185 | +0.18% >>> | 15 GB | 1 | 8127 | +103.58% >>> | 15 GB | 16 | 48156 | +9.18% >>> | 15 GB | 32 | 43387 | +3.8% >>> >>> Please check the patch for more details about schedule balance map, they >>> currently based on linux-next 3.7.0-rc6, will rebase them to tip tree in >>> follow version. >>> >>> Comments are very welcomed. >> >> Could I get some comments for this patch set? > > I kinda like it. It doesn't bounce buddies all over a large package at > low load, doesn't have a tbench dip at clients=cores with HT enabled > that my idle buddy patch does, and your pgbench numbers look very nice. > It's not as good at ramp as idle buddies, but is an improvement over > mainline for both tbench and pgbench. Cool. > > It'll schedule client/server cross node sometimes with you preferring to > leave wakee near prev_cpu, but that's one of those things that can bite > whichever choice you make. It kills the bounce problem, can't hurt > little boxen, and may help big boxen more often than it hurts, who > knows. > > Some tbench numbers: > > I had to plug it into 3.0 to play with it, the 3.6-stable kernel I had > been using on 4x10 core box is misbehaving.
Hi, Mike Thanks for your reply and test results. > > mainline = upstream select_idle_sibling() > idle_buddy = upstream select_idle_sibling() with 37407ea7 reverted > > clients 1 5 10 20 40 > 80 160 > 3.0.57-mainline 30.76 146.29 1569.48 4396.10 7851.87 > 14065.90 14128.40 > 3.0.57-idle_buddy 291.69 1448.13 2874.62 5329.49 7311.44 > 13582.20 13927.50 > 3.0.57-mainline+wang 292.41 1085.70 2048.62 4342.16 8280.17 > 13494.60 13435.50 > > It'd be nice to see more numbers, likely there will be plus/minus all > the map, but from my quick test drive, generic behavior looks healthier. It's good to know that you like the idea, I will re-base the code on latest tip tree and do more test on it. Regards, Michael Wang > > -Mike > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
