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> <CAERHkruEAVBsh6FphMKqgR2+HjsVVegxjnpOFRNfbrfZDNpc9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190427142137.GA72051@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190427142137.GA72051@gmail.com>
From:   Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Apr 2019 23:54:24 +0800
Message-ID: <CAERHkrtaU=Y-Lxypu_7uBbe-mJtG-3friz=ZLhV53X4FXHcEyA@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 10:21 PM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> But what we are really interested in are throughput numbers under these
> three kernel variants, right?
>

These are sysbench events per second number, higher is better.

NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
1/1       508.5( 0.2%)    504.7( 1.1%) -0.8%     509.0( 0.2%)  0.1%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
2/2      1000.2( 1.4%)   1004.1( 1.6%)  0.4%     997.6( 1.2%) -0.3%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
4/4      1912.1( 1.0%)   1904.2( 1.1%) -0.4%    1914.9( 1.3%)  0.1%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
8/8      3753.5( 0.3%)   3748.2( 0.3%) -0.1%    3751.3( 0.4%) -0.1%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
16/16    7139.3( 2.4%)   7137.9( 1.8%) -0.0%    7049.2( 2.4%) -1.3%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
32/32   10899.0( 4.2%)  10780.3( 4.4%) -1.1%    10339.2( 9.6%) -5.1%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
64/64   15086.1(11.5%)  14262.0( 8.2%) -5.5%    11168.7(22.2%) -26.0%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
128/128 15371.9(22.0%)  14675.8(14.4%) -4.5%    10963.9(18.5%) -28.7%
NA/AVX  baseline(std%)  coresched(std%) +/-     nosmt(std%) +/-
256/256 15990.8(22.0%)  12227.9(10.3%) -23.5%   10469.9(19.6%) -34.5%