Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible

[Ingo Molnar]

* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> [2012-02-20 19:14:21]:
> 
> > > I was looking at this code due to vatsa wanting to do SD_BALANCE_WAKE.
> > 
> > I really really need to find time to do systematic mainline testing.
> > 
> > Enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE used to be decidedly too expensive to consider.
> > Maybe that has changed, but I doubt it.  (general aside: testing with a
> > bloated distro config is a big mistake)
> 
> I am seeing 2.6% _improvement_ in volanomark score by enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE 
> at SMT/MC domains.
> 
> Machine : 2 Quad-core Intel X5570 CPU (H/T enabled)
> Kernel  : tip (HEAD at 6241cc8)
> Java	: OpenJDK 1.6.0_20
> Volano  : 2_9_0
> 
> Volano benchmark was run 4 times with and w/o SD_BALANCE_WAKE enabled in
> SMT/MC domains.
> 
> 				Average score	std. dev
> 
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE disabled	369459.750	4825.046
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE enabled		379070.500	379070.5
> 
> I am going to try pipe benchmark next. Do you have suggestions 
> for any other benchmarks I should try to see the effect of 
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE turned on in SMT/MC domains?

sysbench is one of the best ones punishing bad scheduler 
balancing mistakes.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/