Re: HT schedulers' performance on single HT processor

[Con Kolivas]

Quoting Nathan Fredrickson <8nrf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>           X =  1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9    16
> 1phys UP      1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00
> 4phys SMP     1.00  0.99  0.51  0.35  0.27  0.27  0.27  0.27  0.27  0.27
> 4phys HT      1.01  1.00  0.55  0.40  0.33  0.29  0.27  0.26  0.25  0.26
> 4phys HT(w26) 1.01  1.01  0.54  0.37  0.31  0.27  0.26  0.26  0.26  0.26
> 4phys HT(C1)  1.01  1.00  0.52  0.36  0.29  0.28  0.27  0.26  0.25  0.26
> 
> Interesting that the overhead due to HT in the X=1 column is only 1%
> with 4 physical processors.  It was 1-3% before with 1 or 2 physical
> processors.
> 
> In the partial load columns where there are less compiler processes than
> logical CPUs (X=3,4,5,6,7), it appears that both patches are doing a
> better job scheduling than the standard scheduler.  At full load (X=>8)
> all three HT test cases perform about equally and beat standard SMP by
> 1-2%.
> 
> Hope these results are helpful.  I'd be happy to run more cases and/or
> other patches.

(cc list stripped)

Well since you asked... I've been looking for someone with more HT cpus to give
a much simpler approach a try. Here's a sample patch for vanilla test11 with
HT. This one actually helps UP HT performance ever so slightly and I'd be
curious to see if it does anything on more cpus.

Con

Attachment: patch-test11-ht-3
Description: Binary data