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:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 18:20:57 -0500
From:   Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Cc:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@suse.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 v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
Message-ID: <20200221232057.GA19671@sinkpad>
References: <5e3cea14-28d1-bf1e-cabe-fb5b48fdeadc@linux.intel.com>
 <3c3c56c1-b8dc-652c-535e-74f6dcf45560@linux.intel.com>
 <CANaguZAz+mw1Oi8ecZt+JuCWbf=g5UvKrdSvAeM82Z1c+9oWAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e322a252-f983-e3f3-f823-16d0c16b2867@linux.intel.com>
 <20200212230705.GA25315@sinkpad>
 <29d43466-1e18-6b42-d4d0-20ccde20ff07@linux.intel.com>
 <CAERHkruG4y8si9FrBp7cZNEdfP7EzxbmYwvdF2EvHLf=mU1mgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANaguZC40mDHfL1H_9AA7H8cyd028t9PQVRqQ3kB4ha8R7hhqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAERHkruPUrOzDjEp1FV3KY20p9CxLAVzKrZNe5QXsCFZdGskzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANaguZBj_x_2+9KwbHCQScsmraC_mHdQB6uRqMTYMmvhBYfv2Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANaguZBj_x_2+9KwbHCQScsmraC_mHdQB6uRqMTYMmvhBYfv2Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 18-Feb-2020 04:58:02 PM, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > Yes, this makes sense, patch updated at here, I put your name there if
> > you don't mind.
> > https://github.com/aubreyli/linux/tree/coresched_v4-v5.5.2-rc2
> >
> > Thanks Aubrey!

Just a quick note, I ran a very cpu-intensive benchmark (9x12 vcpus VMs
running linpack), all affined to an 18 cores NUMA node (36 hardware
threads). Each VM is running in its own cgroup/tag with core scheduling
enabled. We know it already performed much better than nosmt, so for
this case, I measured various co-scheduling statistics:
- how much time the process spends co-scheduled with idle, a compatible
  or an incompatible task
- how long does the process spends running in a inefficient
  configuration (more than 1 thread running alone on a core)

And I am very happy to report than even though the 9 VMs were configured
to float on the whole NUMA node, the scheduler / load-balancer did a
very good job at keeping an efficient configuration:

Process 10667 (qemu-system-x86), 10 seconds trace:
  - total runtime: 46451472309 ns,
  - local neighbors (total: 45713285084 ns, 98.411 % of process runtime):
  - idle neighbors (total: 484054061 ns, 1.042 % of process runtime):
  - foreign neighbors (total: 4191002 ns, 0.009 % of process runtime):
  - unknown neighbors  (total: 92042503 ns, 0.198 % of process runtime)
  - inefficient periods (total: 464832 ns, 0.001 % of process runtime):
    - number of periods: 48
    - min period duration: 1424 ns
    - max period duration: 116988 ns
    - average period duration: 9684.000 ns
    - stdev: 19282.130

I thought you would enjoy seeing this :-)

Have a good weekend,

Julien