On 6/19/15 2:25 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 07:48:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
cfs_rq[7]:/autogroup-9617
.se->load.weight : 64 (dbench)
.se->avg.load_avg : 50
How you figure out this one is dbench?
dbench is on CPU7 and running there?
Sorry,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 07:48:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>>cfs_rq[7]:/autogroup-9617
> >>>.se->load.weight : 64 (dbench)
> >>>.se->avg.load_avg : 50
> >>How you figure out this one is dbench?
> >>
> >dbench is on CPU7 and running there?
>
> Sorry, do you mean you
On 6/18/15 6:46 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:31:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On 6/17/15 11:11 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:31:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>
> On 6/17/15 11:11 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
> >
> >The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
> >task doing fs ops (70% runnable)
On 6/17/15 11:11 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the same time.
Actually, these 13 tasks are in a task group
On 6/18/15 6:46 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:31:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On 6/17/15 11:11 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 07:48:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
cfs_rq[7]:/autogroup-9617
.se-load.weight : 64 (dbench)
.se-avg.load_avg : 50
How you figure out this one is dbench?
dbench is on CPU7 and running there?
Sorry, do you mean you pin dbench to CPU7?
On 6/19/15 2:25 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 07:48:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
cfs_rq[7]:/autogroup-9617
.se-load.weight : 64 (dbench)
.se-avg.load_avg : 50
How you figure out this one is dbench?
dbench is on CPU7 and running there?
Sorry, do
On 6/17/15 11:11 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the same time.
Actually, these 13 tasks are in a task group
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:31:00PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On 6/17/15 11:11 AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:06:17PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> > So the problem is:
> >
> > 1) The tasks in the workload have too small weight (only 79), because
> >they share a task group.
> >
> > 2) Probably some "high" weight task even runnable a small time
> >contribute "big" to
Hi Yuyang,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:11:01AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
>
> The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
> task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the same time.
>
> Actually,
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the same time.
Actually, these 13 tasks are in a task group /autogroup-9617, which
has weight 1024.
So the 13
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 09:06:17PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
So the problem is:
1) The tasks in the workload have too small weight (only 79), because
they share a task group.
2) Probably some high weight task even runnable a small time
contribute big to cfs_rq's load_avg.
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the same time.
Actually, these 13 tasks are in a task group /autogroup-9617, which
has weight 1024.
So the 13
Hi Yuyang,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:11:01AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi,
The sched_debug is informative, lets first give it some analysis.
The workload is 12 CPU hogging tasks (always runnable) and 1 dbench
task doing fs ops (70% runnable) running at the same time.
Actually, these 13
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:06:50AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Yuyang,
>
> I've run the test as follow on tip/master without and with your
> patchset:
>
> On a 12-core system (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5690 @ 3.47GHz)
> run stress --cpu 12
> run dbench 1
Sorry, I forget to say that `stress --cpu
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:06:50AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
Hi Yuyang,
I've run the test as follow on tip/master without and with your
patchset:
On a 12-core system (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5690 @ 3.47GHz)
run stress --cpu 12
run dbench 1
Sorry, I forget to say that `stress --cpu 12` and
Hi Peter and Ingo,
Changes are made for the 8th version:
1) Rebase to the latest tip tree
2) scale_load_down the weight when doing the averages
3) change util_sum to u32
Thanks a lot for Ben's comments, which lead to this version.
Thanks to Vincent for review.
Regards,
Yuyang
v7 changes:
The
Hi Boqun,
Thanks for the tests.
Indeed I can't find the 8th versio myself in the archive. That is weird.
Vincent sure received the patches, but maybe not the list, then that is
interesting...
Anyway, I will rebase the patches up-to-date, and resend it to the list
shortly.
Regarding test
Hi Yuyang,
We have tested your V7 patchset as follow:
On Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5690 (12 cores), run 12 stress and 6 dbench.
Results show that usages of some CPUs are less than 50% sometimes.
We would like to test your V8 patchset, but I can neither find it in a
lkml archive, nor in my lkml
Hi Yuyang,
We have tested your V7 patchset as follow:
On Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5690 (12 cores), run 12 stress and 6 dbench.
Results show that usages of some CPUs are less than 50% sometimes.
We would like to test your V8 patchset, but I can neither find it in a
lkml archive, nor in my lkml
Hi Boqun,
Thanks for the tests.
Indeed I can't find the 8th versio myself in the archive. That is weird.
Vincent sure received the patches, but maybe not the list, then that is
interesting...
Anyway, I will rebase the patches up-to-date, and resend it to the list
shortly.
Regarding test
Hi Peter and Ingo,
Changes are made for the 8th version:
1) Rebase to the latest tip tree
2) scale_load_down the weight when doing the averages
3) change util_sum to u32
Thanks a lot for Ben's comments, which lead to this version.
Thanks to Vincent for review.
Regards,
Yuyang
v7 changes:
The
Ping ...
Plus some data tested by LKP:
To name a few host configurations:
host: brickland3
model: Brickland Ivy Bridge-EX
nr_cpu: 120
memory: 512G
host: lkp-a03
model: Atom
memory: 8G
host: grantley
model: Grantley Haswell-EP
memory: 32G
host: ivb43
model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP
nr_cpu: 48
Ping ...
Plus some data tested by LKP:
To name a few host configurations:
host: brickland3
model: Brickland Ivy Bridge-EX
nr_cpu: 120
memory: 512G
host: lkp-a03
model: Atom
memory: 8G
host: grantley
model: Grantley Haswell-EP
memory: 32G
host: ivb43
model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP
nr_cpu: 48
Ping once more...
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 09:49:43AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Hi Peter and Ingo,
>
> Changes are made for the 8th version:
>
> 1) Rebase to the latest tip tree
> 2) scale_load_down the weight when doing the averages
> 3) change util_sum to u32
>
> Thanks a lot for Ben's
Ping once more...
On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 09:49:43AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
Hi Peter and Ingo,
Changes are made for the 8th version:
1) Rebase to the latest tip tree
2) scale_load_down the weight when doing the averages
3) change util_sum to u32
Thanks a lot for Ben's comments, which
28 matches
Mail list logo
