lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2
    Date
    Ingo,

    I repeated the tests with your B0 version and it's still not
    satisfying. Maybe too aggressive NODE_REBALANCE_IDLE_TICK, maybe the
    difference is that the other calls of load_balance() never have the
    chance to balance across nodes.

    Here are the results:

    kernbench (average of 5 kernel compiles) (standard error in brackets)
    ---------
    Elapsed UserTime SysTime
    orig 134.43(1.79) 944.79(0.43) 21.41(0.28)
    ingo 136.74(1.58) 951.55(0.73) 21.16(0.32)
    ingofix 135.22(0.59) 952.17(0.78) 21.16(0.19)
    ingoB0 134.69(0.51) 951.63(0.81) 21.12(0.15)


    hackbench (chat benchmark alike) (elapsed time for N groups of 20
    --------- senders & receivers, stats from 10 measurements)

    N=10 N=25 N=50 N=100
    orig 0.77(0.03) 1.91(0.06) 3.77(0.06) 7.78(0.21)
    ingo 1.70(0.35) 3.11(0.47) 4.85(0.55) 8.80(0.98)
    ingofix 1.16(0.14) 2.67(0.53) 5.05(0.26) 9.99(0.13)
    ingoB0 0.84(0.03) 2.12(0.12) 4.20(0.22) 8.04(0.16)


    numabench (N memory intensive tasks running in parallel, disturbed for
    --------- a short time by a "hackbench 10" call)


    numa_test N=4 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
    orig: 26.13(2.54) 86.10(4.47) 0.09(0.01)
    ingo: 27.60(2.16) 88.06(4.58) 0.11(0.01)
    ingofix: 25.51(3.05) 83.55(2.78) 0.10(0.01)
    ingoB0: 27.58(0.08) 90.86(4.42) 0.09(0.01)

    numa_test N=8 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
    orig: 24.81(2.71) 164.94(4.82) 0.17(0.01)
    ingo: 27.38(3.01) 170.06(5.60) 0.30(0.03)
    ingofix: 29.08(2.79) 172.10(4.48) 0.32(0.03)
    ingoB0: 26.05(3.28) 171.61(7.76) 0.18(0.01)

    numa_test N=16 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
    orig: 45.19(3.42) 332.07(5.89) 0.32(0.01)
    ingo: 50.18(0.38) 359.46(9.31) 0.46(0.04)
    ingofix: 50.30(0.42) 357.38(9.12) 0.46(0.01)
    ingoB0: 50.96(1.33) 371.72(18.58) 0.34(0.01)

    numa_test N=32 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime
    orig: 86.84(1.83) 671.99(9.98) 0.65(0.02)
    ingo: 93.44(2.13) 704.90(16.91) 0.82(0.06)
    ingofix: 93.92(1.28) 727.58(9.26) 0.77(0.03)
    ingoB0: 99.72(4.13) 759.03(29.41) 0.69(0.01)


    The kernbench user time is still too large.
    Hackbench improved a lot (understandeable, as idle CPUs steal earlier
    from remote nodes).
    Numa_test didn't improve, in average we have the same results.

    Hmmm, now I really tend towards letting it the way it is in
    2.5.59. Except the topology cleanup and renaming, of course. I have no
    more time to test a more conservative setting of
    IDLE_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK today, but that could help...

    Regards,
    Erich

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.026 / U:91.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site