Hi Leo,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 01:28:49AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
o This patch series is to evaluate if can use rb tree to track task load and util on rq; there have some concern for this method is: rb tree has O(log(N)) computation complexity, so this will introduce extra workload by rb tree's maintainence. For this concern using hackbench to do stress testing, hackbench will generate mass tasks for message sender and receiver, so there will have many enqueue and dequeue operations, so we can use hackbench to get to know if rb tree will introduce big workload or not (Thanks a lot for Chris suggestion for this).
Another concern is scheduler has provided LB_MIN feature, after enable feature LB_MIN the scheduler will avoid to migrate task with load < 16. Somehow this also can help to filter out big tasks for migration. So we need compare power data between this patch series with directly setting LB_MIN.
o Testing result:
Tested hackbench on Hikey with CA53x8 CPUs with SMP load balance:
time sh -c 'for i in `seq 100`; do /data/hackbench -p -P > /dev/null; done' real user system baseline 6m00.57s 1m41.72s 34m38.18s rb tree 5m55.79s 1m33.68s 34m08.38s
For hackbench test case we can see with rb tree it even has better result than baseline kernel.
It is around 1% difference, so pretty much in the noise? Have tried longer runs of hackbench? For the capacity awareness postings I'm using:
perf stat --null --repeat 10 -- \ perf bench sched messaging -g 50 -l 1000
I'm still curious how many tasks that are actually on the rq for hackbench, but it seems that overhead isn't a major issue.
Tested video playback on Juno for LB_MIN vs rb tree:
LB_MIN Nrg:LITTLE Nrg:Big Nrg:Sum
11.3122 8.983429 20.295629 11.337446 8.174061 19.511507 11.256941 8.547895 19.804836 10.994329 9.633028 20.627357 11.483148 8.522364 20.005512 avg. 11.2768128 8.7721554 20.0489682
stdev 0.431777914
rb tree Nrg:LITTLE Nrg:Big Nrg:Sum
11.384301 8.412714 19.797015 11.673992 8.455219 20.129211 11.586081 8.414606 20.000687 11.423509 8.64781 20.071319 11.43709 8.595252 20.032342 avg. 11.5009946 8.5051202 20.0061148
stdev 0.1263371635
vs LB_MIN +1.99% -3.04% -0.21%
Should I read this as the energy benefits of the rb-tree solution is the negligible? It seems to be much smaller than the error margins.
Does we have evidence that the util-rb-tree solution is any better than using LB_MIN?
Thanks, Morten IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.