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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20190427091716.GC99668@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190427091716.GC99668@gmail.com>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Apr 2019 22:04:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkruEAVBsh6FphMKqgR2+HjsVVegxjnpOFRNfbrfZDNpc9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] Core scheduling v2
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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>,
        =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= <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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * 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?

Yeah, like above setup, I run sysbench(Non-AVX task, NA) and gemmbench
(AVX512 task, AVX) in different level utilizatoin. The machine has 104 CPUs, so
nosmt has 52 CPUs.  These numbers are 95th percentile latency of sysbench,
lower is better.

Thanks,
-Aubrey