Message-ID: <1373867877.2072.2.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 22:57:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <51E38517.5040300@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <51D29EE5.8080307@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <20130704091339.GK18898@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <51D5428D.7080805@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1372934013.9046.16.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <51D633DB.5010508@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1372997318.7315.23.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <51D64C84.5080100@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1373002865.8318.11.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <51D664B9.7010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1373179405.19316.41.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <20130708082106.GW23916@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1373309998.1744.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
	 <51DB75D4.6050302@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	 <1373337407.1744.20.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
	 <51DB7AF7.50708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51E38517.5040300@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2142
Lines: 70

On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:13 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Davidlohr
> 
> On 07/09/2013 10:52 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> > On 07/09/2013 10:36 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> 2. is the 3.10-rc5 in image also disabled the hyperthreading?
> >>
> >> Yes, I happened to have data already collected for 3.10-rc5. While the
> >> runs with this patch was with -rc7, unless there was some performance
> >> related commit I missed, I don't think the performance difference was
> >> because of that.
> >>
> >>> 3. is the v3 patch set show the same issue?
> >>
> >> Uhmmm shoot, I didn't realize there was a v3, sorry about that.
> >>
> >> /me takes another look at the thread.
> > 
> > V3 will reduce the overhead, should make things better, especially when
> > workload is high and platform is big (your box is really what I desired
> > ;-), honestly).
> > 
> > And if it is possible, comparison based on the same basement will be
> > better :)
> 
> I have done some tests with reaim high_systime workfile, and I could not
> find regression on my box (the tool itself has some issue, but I got the
> results), v3 works well.

Sorry for the delay. I'm glad you reminded me since I already had the
data.
> 
> I suppose the issue have been addressed, but please let us know if v3
> also show regression on your box, we could try to solve the problem ;-)

It has, high_systime no longer shows a hit and all workloads remain
basically the same.

Tested-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>

Thanks.

> 
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Michael Wang
> > 
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Davidlohr
> >>
> > 
> > --
> > 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/
> > 
> 


--
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/