lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v5] cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems
From
Date
On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 18:25 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems
>
> The venerable menu governor does some thigns that are quite
> questionable in my view.
>
> First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and
> mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases
> causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a
> time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (becuase it knows
> the time until the next timer event and that is later than the
> expected wakeup time).
>
> Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted
> idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O,
> even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are
> woken up.  Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length
> correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting
> on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they
> are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way
> whatever.
>
> Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering
> values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running
> it is a waste of time.
>
> A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address
> these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned
> specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely
> to suffer from that.  It is thus better to introduce an entirely new
> governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works
> better with their actual workloads.
>
> The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO)
> governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to
> find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions.
> However, it applies a different approach to that problem.
>
> First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the
> closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle
> duration values with the available idle states and use that
> information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match"
> the upcoming CPU idle interval.
>
> Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at
> all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups
> into account.  It also only uses idle duration values less than the
> current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that
> purpose.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> v4 -> v5:
>  * Avoid using shallow idle states when the tick has been stopped already.
>
> v3 -> v4:
>  * Make the pattern detection avoid returning too early if the minimum
>    sample is too far from the average.
>  * Reformat the changelog (as requested by Peter).
>
> v2 -> v3:
>  * Simplify the pattern detection code and make it return a value
> lower than the time to the closest timer if the majority of recent
> idle intervals are below it regardless of their variance (that should
> cause it to be slightly more aggressive).
>  * Do not count wakeups from state 0 due to the time limit in poll_idle()
>    as non-timer.
>
> [...]

[NOTE: the tables in this message are quite wide, ~130 columns. If this
doesn't get to you properly formatted you can read a copy of this message at
the URL https://beta.suse.com/private/ggherdovich/teo-eval/teo-eval.html ]


Hello Rafael,

I have results for v3 and v5. Regarding v4, I made a mistake and didn't get
valid data; as I saw v5 coming shortly after, I didn't rerun v4.

I'm replying to the v5 thread because that's where these results belong, but
I'm quoting your text from the v2 email at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4168371.zz0pVZtGOY@aspire.rjw.lan so that's
easier to follow along.

The quick summary is:

---> sockperf on loopback over UDP, mode "throughput":
     this had a 12% regression in v2 on 48x-HASWELL-NUMA, which is completely
     recovered in v3 and v5. Good stuff.

---> dbench on xfs:
     this was down 16% in v2 on 48x-HASWELL-NUMA. On v5 we're at a 10%
     regression. Slight improvement. What's really hurting here is the single
     client scenario.

---> netperf-udp on loopback:
     had 6% regression on v2 on 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA, which is the same as what
     happens in v5.

---> tbench on loopback:
     was down 10% in v2 on 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA, now slightly worse in v5 with a 12%
     regression. As in dbench, it's at low number of clients that the results
     are worst. Note that this machine is different from the one that has the
     dbench regression.

A more detailed report follows below.

I maintain my original opinion from v2 that this governor is largely
performance-neutral and I'm not overly worried about the numbers above:

* results change from machine to machine: dbench is down 10% on
  48x-HASWELL-NUMA, but it also gives you the largest win on the board with a
  4% improvement on 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA. All regressions I mention only manifest on
  one out of three machines.

* similar benchmarks give contradicting results: dbench seems highly sensitive
  to this patch, but pgbench, sqlite, and fio are not. netperf-udp is slightly
  down on 48x-HASWELL-NUMA but sockperf-udp-throughput has benefited from v5
  on that same machine.

To raise an alert from the performance angle I have to see red on my board
from an entire category of benchmarks (ie I/O, or networking, or
scheduler-intensive, etc) and on a variety of hardware configurations. That's
not happening here.

On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 11:06 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:36:21 PM CET Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > I've tested your patches applying them on v4.18 (plus the backport
> > necessary for v2 as Doug helpfully noted), just because it was the latest
> > release when I started preparing this.

I did the same for v3 and v5: baseline is v4.18, using that backport from
linux-next.

> > 
> > I've tested it on three machines, with different generations of Intel CPUs:
> > 
> > * single socket E3-1240 v5 (Skylake 8 cores, which I'll call 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA)
> > * two sockets E5-2698 v4 (Broadwell 80 cores, 80x-BROADWELL-NUMA from here onwards)
> > * two sockets E5-2670 v3 (Haswell 48 cores, 48x-HASWELL-NUMA from here onwards)
> >

Same machines.

> > 
> > BENCHMARKS WITH NEUTRAL RESULTS
> > ===============================
> > 
> > These are the workloads where no noticeable difference is measured (on both
> > v1 and v2, all machines), together with the corresponding MMTests[1]
> > configuration file name:
> > 
> > * pgbench read-only on xfs, pgbench read/write on xfs
> >     * global-dhp__db-pgbench-timed-ro-small-xfs
> >     * global-dhp__db-pgbench-timed-rw-small-xfs
> > * siege
> >     * global-dhp__http-siege
> > * hackbench, pipetest
> >     * global-dhp__scheduler-unbound
> > * Linux kernel compilation
> >     * global-dhp__workload_kerndevel-xfs
> > * NASA Parallel Benchmarks, C-Class (linear algebra; run both with OpenMP
> >   and OpenMPI, over xfs)
> >     * global-dhp__nas-c-class-mpi-full-xfs
> >     * global-dhp__nas-c-class-omp-full
> > * FIO (Flexible IO) in several configurations
> >     * global-dhp__io-fio-randread-async-randwrite-xfs
> >     * global-dhp__io-fio-randread-async-seqwrite-xfs
> >     * global-dhp__io-fio-seqread-doublemem-32k-4t-xfs
> >     * global-dhp__io-fio-seqread-doublemem-4k-4t-xfs
> > * netperf on loopback over TCP
> >     * global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound

> The above is great to know.

All of the above are confirmed, plus we can add to the group of neutral
benchmarks:

* xfsrepair
    * global-dhp__io-xfsrepair-xfs
* sqlite (insert operations on xfs)
    * global-dhp__db-sqlite-insert-medium-xfs
* schbench
    * global-dhp__workload_schbench
* gitsource on xfs (git unit tests, shell intensive)
    * global-dhp__workload_shellscripts-xfs


> > BENCHMARKS WITH NON-NEUTRAL RESULTS: OVERVIEW
> > =============================================
> > 
> > These are benchmarks which exhibit a variation in their performance;
> > you'll see the magnitude of the changes is moderate and it's highly variable
> > from machine to machine. All percentages refer to the v4.18 baseline. In
> > more than one case the Haswell machine seems to prefer v1 to v2.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > * netperf on loopback over UDP
> >     * global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound
> > 
> >                                     teo-v1          teo-v2
> >             -------------------------------------------------
> >             8x-SKYLAKE-UMA          no change       6% worse
> >             80x-BROADWELL-NUMA      1% worse        4% worse
> >             48x-HASWELL-NUMA        3% better       5% worse
> >

New data for netperf-udp, as 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA looked slightly off:

* netperf on loopback over UDP
    * global-dhp__network-netperf-unbound

                        teo-v1          teo-v2          teo-v3          teo-v5
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8x-SKYLAKE-UMA        no change       6% worse        4% worse        6% worse
  80x-BROADWELL-NUMA    1% worse        4% worse        no change       no change
  48x-HASWELL-NUMA      3% better       5% worse        7% worse        5% worse


> > [...]
> >
> > * sockperf on loopback over UDP, mode "throughput"
> >     * global-dhp__network-sockperf-unbound

> Generally speaking, I'm not worried about single-digit percent differences,
> because overall they tend to fall into the noise range in the grand picture.

> >                                     teo-v1          teo-v2
> >             -------------------------------------------------
> >             8x-SKYLAKE-UMA          1% worse        1% worse
> >             80x-BROADWELL-NUMA      3% better       2% better
> >             48x-HASWELL-NUMA        4% better       12% worse

> But the 12% difference here is slightly worrisome.

Following up on the above:

* sockperf on loopback over UDP, mode "throughput"
    * global-dhp__network-sockperf-unbound

                        teo-v1          teo-v2          teo-v3          teo-v5
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8x-SKYLAKE-UMA        1% worse        1% worse        1% worse        1% worse
  80x-BROADWELL-NUMA    3% better       2% better       5% better       3% worse
  48x-HASWELL-NUMA      4% better       12% worse       no change       no change

> >
> > [...]
> > 
> > * dbench on xfs
> >         * global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-xfs
> > 
> >                                     teo-v1          teo-v2
> >             -------------------------------------------------
> >             8x-SKYLAKE-UMA          3% better       4% better
> >             80x-BROADWELL-NUMA      no change       no change
> >             48x-HASWELL-NUMA        6% worse        16% worse

> And same here.

With new data:

* dbench on xfs
    * global-dhp__io-dbench4-async-xfs

                        teo-v1          teo-v2          teo-v3          teo-v5   
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8x-SKYLAKE-UMA        3% better       4% better       6% better       4% better
  80x-BROADWELL-NUMA    no change       no change       1% worse        3% worse
  48x-HASWELL-NUMA      6% worse        16% worse       8% worse        10% worse 



> > * tbench on loopback
> >     * global-dhp__network-tbench
> > 
> >                                     teo-v1          teo-v2
> >             -------------------------------------------------
> >             8x-SKYLAKE-UMA          1% worse        10% worse
> >             80x-BROADWELL-NUMA      1% worse        1% worse
> >             48x-HASWELL-NUMA        1% worse        2% worse
> >

Update on tbench:

* tbench on loopback
    * global-dhp__network-tbench

                        teo-v1          teo-v2          teo-v3          teo-v5
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8x-SKYLAKE-UMA        1% worse        10% worse       11% worse       12% worse
  80x-BROADWELL-NUMA    1% worse        1% worse        no cahnge       1% worse
  48x-HASWELL-NUMA      1% worse        2% worse        1% worse        1% worse

> > [...]
> > 
> > BENCHMARKS WITH NON-NEUTRAL RESULTS: DETAIL
> > ===========================================
> > 
> > Now some more detail. Each benchmark is run in a variety of configurations
> > (eg. number of threads, number of concurrent connections and so forth) each
> > of them giving a result. What you see above is the geometric mean of
> > "sub-results"; below is the detailed view where there was a regression
> > larger than 5% (either in v1 or v2, on any of the machines). That means
> > I'll exclude xfsrepar, sqlite, schbench and the git unit tests "gitsource"
> > that have negligible swings from the baseline.
> > 
> > In all tables asterisks indicate a statement about statistical
> > significance: the difference with baseline has a p-value smaller than 0.1
> > (small p-values indicate that the difference is real and not just random
> > noise).
> > 
> > NETPERF-UDP
> > ===========
> > NOTES: Test run in mode "stream" over UDP. The varying parameter is the
> >     message size in bytes. Each measurement is taken 5 times and the
> >     harmonic mean is reported.
> > MEASURES: Throughput in MBits/second, both on the sender and on the receiver end.
> > HIGHER is better
> > 
> > machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA
> >                                      4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
> >                                     vanilla                 teo-v1        teo-v2+backport
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hmean     send-64         362.27 (   0.00%)      362.87 (   0.16%)      318.85 * -11.99%*
> > Hmean     send-128        723.17 (   0.00%)      723.66 (   0.07%)      660.96 *  -8.60%*
> > Hmean     send-256       1435.24 (   0.00%)     1427.08 (  -0.57%)     1346.22 *  -6.20%*
> > Hmean     send-1024      5563.78 (   0.00%)     5529.90 *  -0.61%*     5228.28 *  -6.03%*
> > Hmean     send-2048     10935.42 (   0.00%)    10809.66 *  -1.15%*    10521.14 *  -3.79%*
> > Hmean     send-3312     16898.66 (   0.00%)    16539.89 *  -2.12%*    16240.87 *  -3.89%*
> > Hmean     send-4096     19354.33 (   0.00%)    19185.43 (  -0.87%)    18600.52 *  -3.89%*
> > Hmean     send-8192     32238.80 (   0.00%)    32275.57 (   0.11%)    29850.62 *  -7.41%*
> > Hmean     send-16384    48146.75 (   0.00%)    49297.23 *   2.39%*    48295.51 (   0.31%)
> > Hmean     recv-64         362.16 (   0.00%)      362.87 (   0.19%)      318.82 * -11.97%*
> > Hmean     recv-128        723.01 (   0.00%)      723.66 (   0.09%)      660.89 *  -8.59%*
> > Hmean     recv-256       1435.06 (   0.00%)     1426.94 (  -0.57%)     1346.07 *  -6.20%*
> > Hmean     recv-1024      5562.68 (   0.00%)     5529.90 *  -0.59%*     5228.28 *  -6.01%*
> > Hmean     recv-2048     10934.36 (   0.00%)    10809.66 *  -1.14%*    10519.89 *  -3.79%*
> > Hmean     recv-3312     16898.65 (   0.00%)    16538.21 *  -2.13%*    16240.86 *  -3.89%*
> > Hmean     recv-4096     19351.99 (   0.00%)    19183.17 (  -0.87%)    18598.33 *  -3.89%*
> > Hmean     recv-8192     32238.74 (   0.00%)    32275.13 (   0.11%)    29850.39 *  -7.41%*
> > Hmean     recv-16384    48146.59 (   0.00%)    49296.23 *   2.39%*    48295.03 (   0.31%)

> That is a bit worse than I would like it to be TBH.

update on netperf-udp:

machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA
                                     4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
                                    vanilla                    teo        teo-v2+backport        teo-v3+backport        teo-v5+backport
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmean     send-64         362.27 (   0.00%)      362.87 (   0.16%)      318.85 * -11.99%*      347.08 *  -4.19%*      333.48 *  -7.95%*
Hmean     send-128        723.17 (   0.00%)      723.66 (   0.07%)      660.96 *  -8.60%*      676.46 *  -6.46%*      650.71 * -10.02%*
Hmean     send-256       1435.24 (   0.00%)     1427.08 (  -0.57%)     1346.22 *  -6.20%*     1359.59 *  -5.27%*     1323.83 *  -7.76%*
Hmean     send-1024      5563.78 (   0.00%)     5529.90 *  -0.61%*     5228.28 *  -6.03%*     5382.04 *  -3.27%*     5271.99 *  -5.24%*
Hmean     send-2048     10935.42 (   0.00%)    10809.66 *  -1.15%*    10521.14 *  -3.79%*    10610.29 *  -2.97%*    10544.58 *  -3.57%*
Hmean     send-3312     16898.66 (   0.00%)    16539.89 *  -2.12%*    16240.87 *  -3.89%*    16271.23 *  -3.71%*    15968.89 *  -5.50%*
Hmean     send-4096     19354.33 (   0.00%)    19185.43 (  -0.87%)    18600.52 *  -3.89%*    18692.16 *  -3.42%*    18408.69 *  -4.89%*
Hmean     send-8192     32238.80 (   0.00%)    32275.57 (   0.11%)    29850.62 *  -7.41%*    30066.83 *  -6.74%*    29824.62 *  -7.49%*
Hmean     send-16384    48146.75 (   0.00%)    49297.23 *   2.39%*    48295.51 (   0.31%)    48800.37 *   1.36%*    48247.73 (   0.21%)
Hmean     recv-64         362.16 (   0.00%)      362.87 (   0.19%)      318.82 * -11.97%*      347.07 *  -4.17%*      333.48 *  -7.92%*
Hmean     recv-128        723.01 (   0.00%)      723.66 (   0.09%)      660.89 *  -8.59%*      676.39 *  -6.45%*      650.63 * -10.01%*
Hmean     recv-256       1435.06 (   0.00%)     1426.94 (  -0.57%)     1346.07 *  -6.20%*     1359.45 *  -5.27%*     1323.81 *  -7.75%*
Hmean     recv-1024      5562.68 (   0.00%)     5529.90 *  -0.59%*     5228.28 *  -6.01%*     5381.37 *  -3.26%*     5271.45 *  -5.24%*
Hmean     recv-2048     10934.36 (   0.00%)    10809.66 *  -1.14%*    10519.89 *  -3.79%*    10610.28 *  -2.96%*    10544.58 *  -3.56%*
Hmean     recv-3312     16898.65 (   0.00%)    16538.21 *  -2.13%*    16240.86 *  -3.89%*    16269.34 *  -3.72%*    15967.13 *  -5.51%*
Hmean     recv-4096     19351.99 (   0.00%)    19183.17 (  -0.87%)    18598.33 *  -3.89%*    18690.13 *  -3.42%*    18407.45 *  -4.88%*
Hmean     recv-8192     32238.74 (   0.00%)    32275.13 (   0.11%)    29850.39 *  -7.41%*    30062.78 *  -6.75%*    29824.30 *  -7.49%*
Hmean     recv-16384    48146.59 (   0.00%)    49296.23 *   2.39%*    48295.03 (   0.31%)    48786.88 *   1.33%*    48246.71 (   0.21%)

Here is a plot of the raw benchmark data, you can better see the distribution
and variability of the results:
https://beta.suse.com/private/ggherdovich/teo-eval/teo-eval.html#netperf-udp

> > [...]
> >
> > SOCKPERF-UDP-THROUGHPUT
> > =======================
> > NOTES: Test run in mode "throughput" over UDP. The varying parameter is the
> >     message size.
> > MEASURES: Throughput, in MBits/second
> > HIGHER is better
> > 
> > machine: 48x-HASWELL-NUMA
> >                               4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
> >                              vanilla                 teo-v1        teo-v2+backport
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hmean     14        48.16 (   0.00%)       50.94 *   5.77%*       42.50 * -11.77%*
> > Hmean     100      346.77 (   0.00%)      358.74 *   3.45%*      303.31 * -12.53%*
> > Hmean     300     1018.06 (   0.00%)     1053.75 *   3.51%*      895.55 * -12.03%*
> > Hmean     500     1693.07 (   0.00%)     1754.62 *   3.64%*     1489.61 * -12.02%*
> > Hmean     850     2853.04 (   0.00%)     2948.73 *   3.35%*     2473.50 * -13.30%*

> Well, in this case the consistent improvement in v1 turned into a consistent decline
> in the v2, and over 10% for that matter.  Needs improvement IMO.

Update: this one got resolved in v5,

machine: 48x-HASWELL-NUMA
                              4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
                             vanilla                    teo        teo-v2+backport        teo-v3+backport        teo-v5+backport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmean     14        48.16 (   0.00%)       50.94 *   5.77%*       42.50 * -11.77%*       48.91 *   1.55%*       49.06 *   1.87%*
Hmean     100      346.77 (   0.00%)      358.74 *   3.45%*      303.31 * -12.53%*      350.75 (   1.15%)      347.52 (   0.22%)
Hmean     300     1018.06 (   0.00%)     1053.75 *   3.51%*      895.55 * -12.03%*     1014.00 (  -0.40%)     1023.99 (   0.58%)
Hmean     500     1693.07 (   0.00%)     1754.62 *   3.64%*     1489.61 * -12.02%*     1688.50 (  -0.27%)     1698.43 (   0.32%)
Hmean     850     2853.04 (   0.00%)     2948.73 *   3.35%*     2473.50 * -13.30%*     2836.13 (  -0.59%)     2767.66 *  -2.99%*

plots of raw data at
https://beta.suse.com/private/ggherdovich/teo-eval/teo-eval.html#sockperf-udp-throughput


> > DBENCH4
> > =======
> > NOTES: asyncronous IO; varies the number of clients up to NUMCPUS*8.
> > MEASURES: latency (millisecs)
> > LOWER is better
> > 
> > machine: 48x-HASWELL-NUMA
> >                               4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
> >                              vanilla                 teo-v1        teo-v2+backport
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Amean      1        37.15 (   0.00%)       50.10 ( -34.86%)       39.02 (  -5.03%)
> > Amean      2        43.75 (   0.00%)       45.50 (  -4.01%)       44.36 (  -1.39%)
> > Amean      4        54.42 (   0.00%)       58.85 (  -8.15%)       58.17 (  -6.89%)
> > Amean      8        75.72 (   0.00%)       74.25 (   1.94%)       82.76 (  -9.30%)
> > Amean      16      116.56 (   0.00%)      119.88 (  -2.85%)      164.14 ( -40.82%)
> > Amean      32      570.02 (   0.00%)      561.92 (   1.42%)      681.94 ( -19.63%)
> > Amean      64     3185.20 (   0.00%)     3291.80 (  -3.35%)     4337.43 ( -36.17%)

> This one too.

Update:

machine: 48x-HASWELL-NUMA
                              4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
                             vanilla                    teo        teo-v2+backport        teo-v3+backport        teo-v5+backport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amean      1        37.15 (   0.00%)       50.10 ( -34.86%)       39.02 (  -5.03%)       52.24 ( -40.63%)       51.62 ( -38.96%)
Amean      2        43.75 (   0.00%)       45.50 (  -4.01%)       44.36 (  -1.39%)       47.25 (  -8.00%)       44.20 (  -1.03%)
Amean      4        54.42 (   0.00%)       58.85 (  -8.15%)       58.17 (  -6.89%)       55.12 (  -1.29%)       58.07 (  -6.70%)
Amean      8        75.72 (   0.00%)       74.25 (   1.94%)       82.76 (  -9.30%)       78.63 (  -3.84%)       85.33 ( -12.68%)
Amean      16      116.56 (   0.00%)      119.88 (  -2.85%)      164.14 ( -40.82%)      124.87 (  -7.13%)      124.54 (  -6.85%)
Amean      32      570.02 (   0.00%)      561.92 (   1.42%)      681.94 ( -19.63%)      568.93 (   0.19%)      571.23 (  -0.21%)
Amean      64     3185.20 (   0.00%)     3291.80 (  -3.35%)     4337.43 ( -36.17%)     3181.13 (   0.13%)     3382.48 (  -6.19%)

It doesn't do well in the single-client scenario; v2 was a lot better at
that, but on the other side it suffered at saturation (64 clients on a 48
cores box). Plot at

https://beta.suse.com/private/ggherdovich/teo-eval/teo-eval.html#dbench4


> > TBENCH4
> > =======
> > NOTES: networking counterpart of dbench. Varies the number of clients up to NUMCPUS*4
> > MEASURES: Throughput, MB/sec
> > HIGHER is better
> > 
> > machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA
> >                                     4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
> >                                    vanilla                    teo        teo-v2+backport
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hmean     mb/sec-1       620.52 (   0.00%)      613.98 *  -1.05%*      502.47 * -19.03%*
> > Hmean     mb/sec-2      1179.05 (   0.00%)     1112.84 *  -5.62%*      820.57 * -30.40%*
> > Hmean     mb/sec-4      2072.29 (   0.00%)     2040.55 *  -1.53%*     2036.11 *  -1.75%*
> > Hmean     mb/sec-8      4238.96 (   0.00%)     4205.01 *  -0.80%*     4124.59 *  -2.70%*
> > Hmean     mb/sec-16     3515.96 (   0.00%)     3536.23 *   0.58%*     3500.02 *  -0.45%*
> > Hmean     mb/sec-32     3452.92 (   0.00%)     3448.94 *  -0.12%*     3428.08 *  -0.72%*
> > 

> And same here.

New data:

machine: 8x-SKYLAKE-UMA
                                    4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0                 4.18.0
                                   vanilla                    teo        teo-v2+backport        teo-v3+backport        teo-v5+backport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmean     mb/sec-1       620.52 (   0.00%)      613.98 *  -1.05%*      502.47 * -19.03%*      492.77 * -20.59%*      464.52 * -25.14%*
Hmean     mb/sec-2      1179.05 (   0.00%)     1112.84 *  -5.62%*      820.57 * -30.40%*      831.23 * -29.50%*      780.97 * -33.76%*
Hmean     mb/sec-4      2072.29 (   0.00%)     2040.55 *  -1.53%*     2036.11 *  -1.75%*     2016.97 *  -2.67%*     2019.79 *  -2.53%*
Hmean     mb/sec-8      4238.96 (   0.00%)     4205.01 *  -0.80%*     4124.59 *  -2.70%*     4098.06 *  -3.32%*     4171.64 *  -1.59%*
Hmean     mb/sec-16     3515.96 (   0.00%)     3536.23 *   0.58%*     3500.02 *  -0.45%*     3438.60 *  -2.20%*     3456.89 *  -1.68%*
Hmean     mb/sec-32     3452.92 (   0.00%)     3448.94 *  -0.12%*     3428.08 *  -0.72%*     3369.30 *  -2.42%*     3430.09 *  -0.66%*

Again, the pain point is at low client count; v1 OTOH was neutral. Plot at
https://beta.suse.com/private/ggherdovich/teo-eval/teo-eval.html#tbench4


Cheers,
Giovanni

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-10 20:06    [W:0.144 / U:8.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site