On 16/05/18 18:31, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 16/05/18 17:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:19:25PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > 
> > > Anyway, FWIW I started testing this on a E5-2609 v3 and I'm not seeing
> > > hackbench regressions so far (running with schedutil governor).
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Server_processors
> > 
> > Lists the E5 2609 v3 as not having turbo at all, which is basically a
> > best case scenario for this patch.
> > 
> > As I wrote earlier today; when turbo exists, like say the 2699, then
> > when we're busy we'll run at U=2.3/3.6 ~ .64, which might confuse
> > things.
> 
> Indeed. I was mostly trying to see if adding this to the tick might
> introduce noticeable overhead.

Blindly testing on an i5-5200U (2.2/2.7 GHz) gave the following

# perf bench sched messaging --pipe --thread --group 2 --loop 20000

                      count       mean       std     min     50%       95%      
 99%     max
hostname kernel                                                                 
            
i5-5200U test_after    30.0  13.843433  0.590605  12.369  13.810  14.85635  
15.08205  15.127
         test_before   30.0  13.571167  0.999798  12.228  13.302  15.57805  
16.40029  16.690

It might be interesting to see what happens when using a single CPU
only?

Also, I will look at how the util signals look when a single CPU is
busy..

Reply via email to