On 24-Apr-2019 09:13:10 PM, Aubrey Li wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:18 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Second iteration of the core-scheduling feature. > > > > This version fixes apparent bugs and performance issues in v1. This > > doesn't fully address the issue of core sharing between processes > > with different tags. Core sharing still happens 1% to 5% of the time > > based on the nature of workload and timing of the runnable processes. > > > > Changes in v2 > > ------------- > > - rebased on mainline commit: 6d906f99817951e2257d577656899da02bb33105 > > Thanks to post v2, based on this version, here is my benchmarks result. > > Environment setup > -------------------------- > Skylake server, 2 numa nodes, 104 CPUs (HT on) > cgroup1 workload, sysbench (CPU intensive non AVX workload) > cgroup2 workload, gemmbench (AVX512 workload) > > Case 1: task number < CPU num > -------------------------------------------- > 36 sysbench threads in cgroup1 > 36 gemmbench threads in cgroup2 > > core sched off: > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 4.952, stddev = 0.55342 > core sched on: > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 3.549, stddev = 0.04449 > > Due to core cookie matching, sysbench tasks won't be affect by AVX512 > tasks, latency has ~28% improvement!!! > > Case 2: task number > CPU number > ------------------------------------------------- > 72 sysbench threads in cgroup1 > 72 gemmbench threads in cgroup2 > > core sched off: > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 11.914, stddev = 3.259 > core sched on: > - sysbench 95th percentile latency(ms): avg = 13.289, stddev = 4.863 > > So not only power, now security and performance is a pair of contradictions. > Due to core cookie not matching and forced idle introduced, latency has ~12% > regression. > > Any comments?
Would it be possible to post the results with HT off as well ? Thanks, Julien
