Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

[Raghavendra K T]

On 2/22/2024 2:46 AM, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On 2/21/2024 10:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 21 2024 at 17:53, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > > Configuration tested.
> > > > a) Base kernel (6.7),
> > > Which scheduling model is the baseline using?
> >
> > baseline is also PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with voluntary preemption
> >
> > > > 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
> > > > XSBench	     +1.7		     +0
> > > > Graph500,  	     -6 		     +0
> > > The Graph500 stands out. Needs some analysis.
> >
> > Sure. Will do more detailed analysis and comeback on this.
>
> Thanks Raghu. Please keep me posted.
>
> Also, let me try to reproduce this locally. Could you post the
> parameters that you used for the Graph500 run?

This was run as part of test suite where by from output, Parameters, I 
see as :

SCALE: 27
nvtx: 134217728
edgefactor: 16
terasize: 3.43597383679999993e-02
A: 5.69999999999999951e-01
B: 1.90000000000000002e-01
C: 1.90000000000000002e-01
D: 5.00000000000000444e-02
generation_time: 4.93902114900000022e+00
construction_time: 2.55216929010000015e+01
nbfs: 64

Meanwhile since stddev for the runs I saw was little bit on higher side,
I did think results are Okay.

Rerunning with more iterations to see if there is a valid concern, if so 
I will dig more deep as Thomas pointed.
Also will post the results of run.

Thanks and Regards
- Raghu