Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 27 Apr 2019 11:17:16 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Cc:     Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
Message-ID: <20190427091716.GC99668@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1556025155.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <CAERHkrtOCbLQ-tFq9ujjnyaudtd_e0UaSA2GQG64JqdS6cuTKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190424140013.GA14594@sinkpad>
 <CAERHkrtVjU4SaHjPGNb140qBiU+wVELGaH6j9Z=cctToZ0qn9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190425095508.GA8387@gmail.com>
 <CAERHkrs0=xcx9UUZbZPYq4QbznUqHAuVbTnafSVpZFKwAEFyMA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAERHkrs0=xcx9UUZbZPYq4QbznUqHAuVbTnafSVpZFKwAEFyMA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


* Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have the same environment setup above, for nosmt cases, I used
> /sys interface Thomas mentioned, below is the result:
> 
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 1/1      1.987( 1.97%)   2.043( 1.76%) -2.84% 1.985( 1.70%)  0.12%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 2/2      2.074( 1.16%)   2.057( 2.09%)  0.81% 2.072( 0.77%)  0.10%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 4/4      2.140( 0.00%)   2.138( 0.49%)  0.09% 2.137( 0.89%)  0.12%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 8/8      2.140( 0.00%)   2.144( 0.53%) -0.17% 2.140( 0.00%)  0.00%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 16/16    2.361( 2.99%)   2.369( 2.65%) -0.30% 2.406( 2.53%) -1.87%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 32/32    5.032( 8.68%)   3.485( 0.49%) 30.76% 6.002(27.21%) -19.27%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 64/64    7.577(34.35%)   3.972(23.18%) 47.57% 18.235(14.14%) -140.68%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 128/128 24.639(14.28%)  27.440( 8.24%) -11.37% 34.746( 6.92%) -41.02%
> NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
> 256/256 38.797( 8.59%)  44.067(16.20%) -13.58% 42.536( 7.57%) -9.64%

What do these numbers mean? Are these latencies, i.e. lower is better?

Thanks,

	Ingo