lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
From
Date
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 09:40 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:

> The WAKE_WIDE_IDLE run was basically the same so I'm good with the KISS
> version. I'll run that through the load tests this morning and let you
> know how it goes. I'm still seeing a slight regression at lower RPS,
> but it's like 1-2%, compared to ~15%.

If I'm to believe pgbench, and configs really are as close as they
should be, there may be something between 3.12 and master which could
account for your delta and then some. I may go hunting.. heck, if I
trusted pgbench I would be hunting.

patched SLE (resembles 3.12 if you squint)
postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh
clients 12 tps = 134795.901777
clients 24 tps = 156955.584523
clients 36 tps = 161450.044316
clients 48 tps = 171181.069044
clients 60 tps = 157896.858179
clients 72 tps = 155816.051709
clients 84 tps = 152456.003468
clients 96 tps = 121129.848008

patched master
postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh
clients 12 tps = 120793.023637
clients 24 tps = 144668.961468
clients 36 tps = 156705.239251
clients 48 tps = 152004.886893
clients 60 tps = 138582.113864
clients 72 tps = 136286.891104
clients 84 tps = 137420.986043
clients 96 tps = 135199.060242



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-07 17:41    [W:0.253 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site