Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Feb 2020 18:20:57 -0500 | From | Julien Desfossez <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4 |
| |
On 18-Feb-2020 04:58:02 PM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > > Yes, this makes sense, patch updated at here, I put your name there if > > you don't mind. > > https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5.2-rc2 > > > > Thanks Aubrey!
Just a quick note, I ran a very cpu-intensive benchmark (9x12 vcpus VMs running linpack), all affined to an 18 cores NUMA node (36 hardware threads). Each VM is running in its own cgroup/tag with core scheduling enabled. We know it already performed much better than nosmt, so for this case, I measured various co-scheduling statistics: - how much time the process spends co-scheduled with idle, a compatible or an incompatible task - how long does the process spends running in a inefficient configuration (more than 1 thread running alone on a core)
And I am very happy to report than even though the 9 VMs were configured to float on the whole NUMA node, the scheduler / load-balancer did a very good job at keeping an efficient configuration:
Process 10667 (qemu-system-x86), 10 seconds trace: - total runtime: 46451472309 ns, - local neighbors (total: 45713285084 ns, 98.411 % of process runtime): - idle neighbors (total: 484054061 ns, 1.042 % of process runtime): - foreign neighbors (total: 4191002 ns, 0.009 % of process runtime): - unknown neighbors (total: 92042503 ns, 0.198 % of process runtime) - inefficient periods (total: 464832 ns, 0.001 % of process runtime): - number of periods: 48 - min period duration: 1424 ns - max period duration: 116988 ns - average period duration: 9684.000 ns - stdev: 19282.130
I thought you would enjoy seeing this :-)
Have a good weekend,
Julien
| |