lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling
On 01/28/2013 01:19 PM, 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.

Sorry, the testing configuration is unfair for this specjbb2005 results
here. I set JVM hard pin and use hugepage for peak performance.

When remove the hard pin and no hugepage, the balance/powersaving both
drop about 5% VS performance policy, and performance policy result is
similar with 3.8-rc5.

>>
>> 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.
>


--
Thanks Alex


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-29 07:41    [W:0.090 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site