On 01/28/2013 01:19 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >>> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, >>> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads >>> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear >>> performance change found. >> >> Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is >> there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions >> with the bunch of benchmarks. >> >>> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, >>> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever >>> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving >>> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change.
Sorry, the testing configuration is unfair for this specjbb2005 results here. I set JVM hard pin and use hugepage for peak performance. When remove the hard pin and no hugepage, the balance/powersaving both drop about 5% VS performance policy, and performance policy result is similar with 3.8-rc5. >> >> I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit >> when saving power... >> > > BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master. > The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy. > The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical. > -- Thanks Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
