Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:30:34 -0400
From: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] select_idle_sibling experiments
Message-ID: <20160409173034.GA85074@clm-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20160405180822.tjtyyc3qh4leflfj@floor.thefacebook.com>
 <1459927644.5612.41.camel@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1459927644.5612.41.camel@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 819
Lines: 21

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 09:27:24AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 14:08 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> > Now, on to the patch.  I pushed some code around and narrowed the
> > problem down to select_idle_sibling()   We have cores going into and out
> > of idle fast enough that even this cut our latencies in half:
> 
> Are you using NO_HZ?  If so, you may want to try the attached.

[ nohz throttling patch ]

I tested the nohz throttle two different ways, first with schbench's
pipe simulation, it's easily 8% faster with messages bouncing between
cpus.

In production it's hard to pick a single number because the benchmarks
produce latency curves as the workload scales up in RPS.  The benefits
range from 2-9% depending on the metric.  It's a nice win, and I'd love to
see it go in.

-chris