>> then the above no_node-load_balance thing suffers a small-ish dip at 320 >> tasks, yeah. > > No no, that's not restricted to one node. It's just overloaded because > I turned balancing off at the NODE domain level. > >> And AFAICR, the effect of disabling boosting will be visible in the >> small count tasks cases anyway because if you saturate the cores with >> tasks, the boosting algorithms tend to get the box out of boosting for >> the simple reason that the power/perf headroom simply disappears due to >> the SOC being busy. >> >>> 640 100294.8 98 38.7 570.9 2.6118 >>> 1280 115998.2 97 66.9 1132.8 1.5104 >>> 2560 125820.0 97 123.3 2256.6 0.8191 >> >> I dunno about those. maybe this is expected with so many tasks or do we >> want to optimize that case further? > > When using all 4 nodes properly, that's still scaling. Here, I
Without node regular balancing, only waking balance left in select_task_rq_fair for aim7 testing, (I just assume you used shared workfile, most of testing is cpu density and only few exec/fork load). Since, waking balance just happened in same llc domain. guess that is the reason for this. > intentionally screwed up balancing to watch the low end. High end is > expected wreckage. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
