LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] sched/numa: Use task faults only if numa_group is not yet setup
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 06:09:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180604130934.GC38574@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180604122408.GT12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

> > Testcase       Time:         Min         Max         Avg      StdDev 	 %Change
> > numa01.sh      Real:      478.45      565.90      515.11       30.87 	 16.29%
> > numa01.sh       Sys:      207.79      271.04      232.94       21.33 	 -15.8%
> > numa01.sh      User:    39763.93    47303.12    43210.73     2644.86 	 14.04%
> > numa02.sh      Real:       60.00       61.46       60.78        0.49 	 0.871%
> > numa02.sh       Sys:       15.71       25.31       20.69        3.42 	 17.35%
> > numa02.sh      User:     5175.92     5265.86     5235.97       32.82 	 0.464%
> > numa03.sh      Real:      776.42      834.85      806.01       23.22 	 -7.47%
> > numa03.sh       Sys:      114.43      128.75      121.65        5.49 	 -19.5%
> > numa03.sh      User:    60773.93    64855.25    62616.91     1576.39 	 -5.36%
> > numa04.sh      Real:      456.93      511.95      482.91       20.88 	 2.930%
> > numa04.sh       Sys:      178.09      460.89      356.86       94.58 	 -11.3%
> > numa04.sh      User:    36312.09    42553.24    39623.21     2247.96 	 0.246%
> > numa05.sh      Real:      393.98      493.48      436.61       35.59 	 0.677%
> > numa05.sh       Sys:      164.49      329.15      265.87       61.78 	 38.92%
> > numa05.sh      User:    33182.65    36654.53    35074.51     1187.71 	 3.368%
> > 
> > Ideally this change shouldn't have affected performance.
> 
> Ideally you go on here to explain why it does in fact do affect
> performance.. :-)

I know it looks bad, but I have been unable to figure out why this patch
affects performance. I repeated the experiment multiple times to recheck
if it was not a one off problem. While there is a variance in different
runs, we do see a change in numbers before and after this patch atleast
on my machine.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-04 13:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-04 10:00 [PATCH 00/19] Fixes for sched/numa_balancing Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 01/19] sched/numa: Remove redundant field Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 14:53   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  8:41   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 02/19] sched/numa: Evaluate move once per node Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 14:51   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 15:45     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 03/19] sched/numa: Simplify load_too_imbalanced Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 14:57   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  8:46   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 04/19] sched/numa: Set preferred_node based on best_cpu Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 12:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-04 12:53     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 12:23   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-04 12:59     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 13:39       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-04 13:48         ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 14:37       ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 15:56         ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 05/19] sched/numa: Use task faults only if numa_group is not yet setup Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 12:24   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-04 13:09     ` Srikar Dronamraju [this message]
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 06/19] sched/debug: Reverse the order of printing faults Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 16:28   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  8:50   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 07/19] sched/numa: Skip nodes that are at hoplimit Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 16:27   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  8:50   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 08/19] sched/numa: Remove unused task_capacity from numa_stats Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 16:28   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  8:57   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 09/19] sched/numa: Modify migrate_swap to accept additional params Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 17:00   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  8:58   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 10/19] sched/numa: Stop multiple tasks from moving to the cpu at the same time Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 17:57   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  9:51   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 11/19] sched/numa: Restrict migrating in parallel to the same node Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 17:59   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  9:53   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-06 12:58     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 12/19] sched:numa Remove numa_has_capacity Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 18:07   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 13/19] mm/migrate: Use xchg instead of spinlock Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 18:22   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 19:28   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-05  7:24     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-05  8:16       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 14/19] sched/numa: Updation of scan period need not be in lock Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 18:24   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 15/19] sched/numa: Use group_weights to identify if migration degrades locality Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 18:56   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 16/19] sched/numa: Detect if node actively handling migration Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 20:05   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  3:56     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-05 13:07       ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-06 12:55         ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-06 13:55           ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-06 15:32             ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-06 17:06               ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 17/19] sched/numa: Pass destination cpu as a parameter to migrate_task_rq Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 18/19] sched/numa: Reset scan rate whenever task moves across nodes Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 20:08   ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-05  9:58   ` Mel Gorman
2018-06-06 13:47     ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-06-04 10:00 ` [PATCH 19/19] sched/numa: Move task_placement closer to numa_migrate_preferred Srikar Dronamraju

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180604130934.GC38574@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 05/19] sched/numa: Use task faults only if numa_group is not yet setup' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).