Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:43:11 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/numa: use runnable_avg to classify node |
| |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 17:35, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> 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@linaro.org> > > 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@suse.de>
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
| |