Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:07:16 +0530 | From | Kamalesh Babulal <> | Subject | Re: CFS Bandwidth Control - Test results of cgroups tasks pinned vs unpinned |
| |
* Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> [2011-06-13 17:00:08]:
> Hi Kamalesh. > > I tried on both friday and again today to reproduce your results > without success. Results are attached below. The margin of error is > the same as the previous (2-level deep case), ~4%. One minor nit, in > your script's input parsing you're calling shift; you don't need to do > this with getopts and it will actually lead to arguments being > dropped. > > Are you testing on top of a clean -tip? Do you have any custom > load-balancer or scheduler settings? > > Thanks, > > - Paul > > > Hyper-threaded topology: > unpinned: > Average CPU Idle percentage 38.6333% > Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 61.3667% > > pinned: > Average CPU Idle percentage 35.2766% > Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 64.7234% > (The mask in the "unpinned" case is 0-3,6-9,12-15,18-21 which should > mirror your 2 socket 8x2 configuration.) > > 4-way NUMA topology: > unpinned: > Average CPU Idle percentage 5.26667% > Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 94.73333% > > pinned: > Average CPU Idle percentage 0.242424% > Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 99.757576% > Hi Paul,
I tried tip 919c9baa9 + V6 patchset on 2 socket,quadcore with HT and the Idle time seen is ~22% to ~23%. Kernel is not tuned to any custom load-balancer/scheduler settings.
unpinned: Average CPU Idle percentage 23.5333% Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 76.4667%
pinned: Average CPU Idle percentage 0% Bandwidth shared with remaining non-Idle 100%
Thanks,
Kamalesh > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Kamalesh Babulal > <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > * Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> [2011-06-08 20:25:00]: > > > >> Hi Kamalesh, > >> > >> I'm unable to reproduce the results you describe. One possibility is > >> load-balancer interaction -- can you describe the topology of the > >> platform you are running this on? > >> > >> On both a straight NUMA topology and a hyper-threaded platform I > >> observe a ~4% delta between the pinned and un-pinned cases. > >> > >> Thanks -- results below, > >> > >> - Paul > >> > >> (snip) -- 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/
|  |