* Aubrey Li <aubrey.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Aubrey Li <aubrey.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have the same environment setup above, for nosmt cases, I used
> > > /sys interface Thomas mentioned, below is the result:
> > >
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 1/1 1.987( 1.97%) 2.043( 1.76%) -2.84% 1.985( 1.70%) 0.12%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 2/2 2.074( 1.16%) 2.057( 2.09%) 0.81% 2.072( 0.77%) 0.10%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 4/4 2.140( 0.00%) 2.138( 0.49%) 0.09% 2.137( 0.89%) 0.12%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 8/8 2.140( 0.00%) 2.144( 0.53%) -0.17% 2.140( 0.00%) 0.00%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 16/16 2.361( 2.99%) 2.369( 2.65%) -0.30% 2.406( 2.53%) -1.87%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 32/32 5.032( 8.68%) 3.485( 0.49%) 30.76% 6.002(27.21%) -19.27%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 64/64 7.577(34.35%) 3.972(23.18%) 47.57% 18.235(14.14%) -140.68%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 128/128 24.639(14.28%) 27.440( 8.24%) -11.37% 34.746( 6.92%) -41.02%
> > > NA/AVX baseline(std%) coresched(std%) +/- nosmt(std%) +/-
> > > 256/256 38.797( 8.59%) 44.067(16.20%) -13.58% 42.536( 7.57%) -9.64%
> >
> > What do these numbers mean? Are these latencies, i.e. lower is better?
>
> Yeah, like above setup, I run sysbench(Non-AVX task, NA) and gemmbench
> (AVX512 task, AVX) in different level utilizatoin. The machine has 104 CPUs,
> so
> nosmt has 52 CPUs. These numbers are 95th percentile latency of sysbench,
> lower is better.
But what we are really interested in are throughput numbers under these
three kernel variants, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
