Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:02:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:02:01 -0500 Received: from ophelia.ess.nec.de ([193.141.139.8]:6841 "EHLO ophelia.ess.nec.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:01:59 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Erich Focht To: Ingo Molnar , "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:11:29 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Robert Love , Michael Hohnbaum , Andrew Theurer , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , lse-tech References: <200301171535.21226.efocht@ess.nec.de> In-Reply-To: <200301171535.21226.efocht@ess.nec.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200301171911.29514.efocht@ess.nec.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo, I repeated the tests with your B0 version and it's still not satisfying. Maybe too aggressive NODE_REBALANCE_IDLE_TICK, maybe the difference is that the other calls of load_balance() never have the chance to balance across nodes. Here are the results: kernbench (average of 5 kernel compiles) (standard error in brackets) --------- Elapsed UserTime SysTime orig 134.43(1.79) 944.79(0.43) 21.41(0.28) ingo 136.74(1.58) 951.55(0.73) 21.16(0.32) ingofix 135.22(0.59) 952.17(0.78) 21.16(0.19) ingoB0 134.69(0.51) 951.63(0.81) 21.12(0.15) hackbench (chat benchmark alike) (elapsed time for N groups of 20 --------- senders & receivers, stats from 10 measurements) N=10 N=25 N=50 N=100 orig 0.77(0.03) 1.91(0.06) 3.77(0.06) 7.78(0.21) ingo 1.70(0.35) 3.11(0.47) 4.85(0.55) 8.80(0.98) ingofix 1.16(0.14) 2.67(0.53) 5.05(0.26) 9.99(0.13) ingoB0 0.84(0.03) 2.12(0.12) 4.20(0.22) 8.04(0.16) numabench (N memory intensive tasks running in parallel, disturbed for --------- a short time by a "hackbench 10" call) numa_test N=4 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime orig: 26.13(2.54) 86.10(4.47) 0.09(0.01) ingo: 27.60(2.16) 88.06(4.58) 0.11(0.01) ingofix: 25.51(3.05) 83.55(2.78) 0.10(0.01) ingoB0: 27.58(0.08) 90.86(4.42) 0.09(0.01) numa_test N=8 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime orig: 24.81(2.71) 164.94(4.82) 0.17(0.01) ingo: 27.38(3.01) 170.06(5.60) 0.30(0.03) ingofix: 29.08(2.79) 172.10(4.48) 0.32(0.03) ingoB0: 26.05(3.28) 171.61(7.76) 0.18(0.01) numa_test N=16 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime orig: 45.19(3.42) 332.07(5.89) 0.32(0.01) ingo: 50.18(0.38) 359.46(9.31) 0.46(0.04) ingofix: 50.30(0.42) 357.38(9.12) 0.46(0.01) ingoB0: 50.96(1.33) 371.72(18.58) 0.34(0.01) numa_test N=32 ElapsedTime TotalUserTime TotalSysTime orig: 86.84(1.83) 671.99(9.98) 0.65(0.02) ingo: 93.44(2.13) 704.90(16.91) 0.82(0.06) ingofix: 93.92(1.28) 727.58(9.26) 0.77(0.03) ingoB0: 99.72(4.13) 759.03(29.41) 0.69(0.01) The kernbench user time is still too large. Hackbench improved a lot (understandeable, as idle CPUs steal earlier from remote nodes). Numa_test didn't improve, in average we have the same results. Hmmm, now I really tend towards letting it the way it is in 2.5.59. Except the topology cleanup and renaming, of course. I have no more time to test a more conservative setting of IDLE_NODE_REBALANCE_TICK today, but that could help... Regards, Erich - 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/