On 01/28/2013 02:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 13:19 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >>>> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, >>>> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads >>>> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear >>>> performance change found. >>> >>> Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is >>> there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions >>> with the bunch of benchmarks. >>> >>>> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, >>>> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever >>>> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving >>>> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change. >>> >>> I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit >>> when saving power... >>> >> >> BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master. >> The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy. >> The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical. > > That makes sense. How the numa scheduling numbers compare to mainline? > Do you have all three available, mainline, and tip w. w/o powersaving > policy? >
I once caught 20~40% performance increasing on sched numa VS mainline 3.7-rc5. but have no baseline to compare balance/powersaving performance since lower data are acceptable for balance/powersaving and tip/master changes too quickly to follow up at that time. :) > -Mike > > -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
