Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1178748

Re: [patch] Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

Show all headers | View raw

On 07/07/2015 05:43 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 06:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:41 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>>> So the NO_WAKE_WIDE_IDLE results are very good, almost the same as the
>>> baseline with a slight regression at lower RPS and a slight improvement
>>> at high RPS.
>>
>> Good.  I can likely drop the rest then (I like dinky, so do CPUs;).  I'm
>> not real keen on the feature unless your numbers are really good, and
>> odds are that ain't gonna happen.
>
> More extensive testing in pedantic-man mode increased my confidence of
> that enough to sign off and ship the dirt simple version.  Any further
> twiddles should grow their own wings if they want to fly anyway, the
> simplest form helps your real world load, as well as the not so real
> pgbench, my numbers for that below.
>
> virgin master, 2 socket box
> postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12      tps = 96233.854271     1.000
> clients 24      tps = 142234.686166    1.000
> clients 36      tps = 148433.534531    1.000
> clients 48      tps = 133105.634302    1.000
> clients 60      tps = 128903.080371    1.000
> clients 72      tps = 128591.821782    1.000
> clients 84      tps = 114445.967116    1.000
> clients 96      tps = 109803.557524    1.000    avg   125219.017   1.000
>
> V3 (KISS, below)
> postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12      tps = 120793.023637    1.255
> clients 24      tps = 144668.961468    1.017
> clients 36      tps = 156705.239251    1.055
> clients 48      tps = 152004.886893    1.141
> clients 60      tps = 138582.113864    1.075
> clients 72      tps = 136286.891104    1.059
> clients 84      tps = 137420.986043    1.200
> clients 96      tps = 135199.060242    1.231   avg   140207.645   1.119   1.000
>
> V2 NO_WAKE_WIDE_IDLE
> postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12      tps = 121821.966162    1.265
> clients 24      tps = 146446.388366    1.029
> clients 36      tps = 151373.362190    1.019
> clients 48      tps = 156806.730746    1.178
> clients 60      tps = 133933.491567    1.039
> clients 72      tps = 131460.489424    1.022
> clients 84      tps = 130859.340261    1.143
> clients 96      tps = 130787.476584    1.191   avg   137936.155   1.101   0.983
>
> V2 WAKE_WIDE_IDLE (crawl in a hole feature, you're dead)
> postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh
> clients 12      tps = 121297.791570
> clients 24      tps = 145939.488312
> clients 36      tps = 155336.090263
> clients 48      tps = 149018.245323
> clients 60      tps = 136730.079391
> clients 72      tps = 134886.116831
> clients 84      tps = 130493.283398
> clients 96      tps = 126043.336074
>
>
> sched: beef up wake_wide()
>
> Josef Bacik reported that Facebook sees better performance with their
> 1:N load (1 dispatch/node, N workers/node) when carrying an old patch
> to try very hard to wake to an idle CPU.  While looking at wake_wide(),
> I noticed that it doesn't pay attention to wakeup of the 1:N waker,
> returning 1 only when the 1:N waker is waking one of its minions.
>
> Correct that, and don't bother doing domain traversal when we know
> that all we need to do is check for an idle cpu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>

Ok you can add

Tested-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>

The new patch is the best across the board, there are no regressions and 
about a 5% improvement for the bulk of the run (25 percentile and up). 
Thanks for your help on this!

Josef

--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for  BALANCE_WAKE Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> - 2015-07-05 10:30 +0200
  [patch] Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle  sibling for BALANCE_WAKE Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> - 2015-07-07 11:50 +0200
    Re: [patch] Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle  sibling for BALANCE_WAKE Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> - 2015-07-07 19:10 +0200

csiph-web