Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling
From: Raghavendra K T
Date: Wed Feb 21 2024 - 07:24:04 EST
On 2/13/2024 11:25 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
Hi,
This series adds a new scheduling model PREEMPT_AUTO, which like
PREEMPT_DYNAMIC allows dynamic switching between a none/voluntary/full
preemption model. However, unlike PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, it doesn't depend
on explicit preemption points for the voluntary models.
The series is based on Thomas' original proposal which he outlined
in [1], [2] and in his PoC [3].
An earlier RFC version is at [4].
[...]
Hello Ankur,
Thank you for the series. Just giving a crisp summary since I am
expecting a respin of patchseries with minor changes suggested by
Thomas, Mark and a fix by Paul. and looking forward to test that.
I was able to test the current patchset rather in a different way.
On Milan, (2 node, 256 cpu, 512GB RAM), Did my regular benchmark
testing, to see if there are any surprises.
Will do more detailed testing/analysis w/ some of the scheduler specific
tests also after your respin.
Configuration tested.
a) Base kernel (6.7),
b) patched with PREEMPT_AUTO voluntary preemption.
c) patched with PREEMPT_DYNAMIC voluntary preemption.
Workloads I tested and their %gain,
case b case c
NAS +2.7 +1.9
Hashjoin, +0 +0
Graph500, -6 +0
XSBench +1.7 +0
Did kernbench etc test from Mel's mmtests suite also. Did not notice
much difference.
In summary benchmarks are mostly on positive side.
Thanks and Regards
- Raghu