lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Scheduler patches: 6x performance increase when system is under heavy load
> Which of the 4 patches does this?

I used all the 4 patches at the same time. Each patch fixes a
different bug. Would you like me to try each of them individually?
Were you already aware of each of these bugs?

> Also, what hypervisor are you using and what does the output of booting
> with "sched_debug" look like?

I was running the distro in VirualBox on Fedora. Here's the info from
/proc/sched_debug:
https://justpaste.it/11dhb
dmesg: https://justpaste.it/11dhr

> Lastly, can you reproduce on real hardware?

No. On real hardware, I tested in Ubuntu on an i7-4790 3.60GHz CPU
without disabling HT and I saw no difference between CFS, the patched
kernel and MuQSS. If I get to know a reason why one would be better
than the other, I'd take the time to test it on more hardware. I'm
curious how I got such a performance improvement in my VM.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 04:41:51PM -0500, Alexandre-Xavier Labonté-Lamoureux wrote:
>>
>> Here are my results (using "time make -j32" on my VM that has 4 cores):
>>
>> Kernel 4.8.14
>> real 26m56.151s
>> user 79m52.472s
>> sys 7m42.964s
>>
>> Same kernel, but patched:
>> real 4m25.238s
>> user 13m52.932s
>> sys 1m25.820s
>>
>> I hope you guys will look into this.
>
> Which of the 4 patches does this?
>
> Also, what hypervisor are you using and what does the output of booting
> with "sched_debug" look like?
>
> Lastly, can you reproduce on real hardware?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-14 06:16    [W:0.267 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site