From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Jirka Hladky <jhladky@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: sched : performance regression 24% between 4.4rc4 and 4.3 kernel
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:04:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1449903863.9638.8.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE4VaGAziCRGRXPPO6YtiHLXqeLUMcuYCh3mkmGpDjfW8GaetQ@mail.gmail.com>
(it's always a good idea to CC subsystem maintainers when reporting)
On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 15:17 +0100, Jirka Hladky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are doing performance testing of the new kernel scheduler (commit
> 53528695ff6d8b77011bc818407c13e30914a946). In most cases we see
> performance improvements compared to 4.3 kernel with the exception of
> stream benchmark when running on 4 NUMA node server.
>
> When we run 4 stream benchmark processes on 4 NUMA node server and we
> compare the total performance we see drop about 24% compared to 4.3
> kernel. This is caused by the fact that 2 stream benchmarks are
> running on the same NUMA node while 1 NUMA node does not run any
> stream benchmark. With kernel 4.3, load is distributed evenly among
> all 4 NUMA nodes. When two stream benchmarks are running on the same
> NUMA node then the runtime is almost twice as long compared to one
> stream bench running on one NUMA node. See log files [1] bellow.
>
> Please see the graph comparing stream benchmark results between
> kernel
> 4.3 and 4.4rc4 (for legend see [2] bellow).
> https://jhladky.fedorapeople.org/sched_stream_kernel_4.3vs4.4rc4/Stre
> am_benchmark_on_4_NUMA_node_server_4.3vs4.4rc4_kernel.png
>
> Could you please help us to identify the root cause of this
> regression? We don't have the skills to fix the problem ourselves but
> we will be more than happy to test any proposed patch for this issue.
A bisection doesn't require any special skills, but may give busy
maintainers a single change to eyeball vs the entire lot.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-12 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-11 14:17 sched : performance regression 24% between 4.4rc4 and 4.3 kernel Jirka Hladky
2015-12-12 7:04 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2015-12-12 14:16 ` Jirka Hladky
2015-12-12 14:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-12-15 0:02 ` Jirka Hladky
2015-12-15 0:04 ` Jirka Hladky
[not found] ` <CAE4VaGCgAvvQXDsv=Gn8B0JtTzCnXe0oP63HLQWSCyY_QNOB7g@mail.gmail.com>
2015-12-15 2:12 ` Rik van Riel
2015-12-15 8:49 ` Jirka Hladky
2015-12-16 12:56 ` Jirka Hladky
2015-12-16 13:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-12-16 17:04 ` Jirka Hladky
[not found] ` <CAE4VaGD49UAsBJn3jgg0kREWqjYz8UnvWOi8zU4d5HgNgNS-sQ@mail.gmail.com>
2015-12-17 15:43 ` Jirka Hladky
2015-12-18 2:49 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1449903863.9638.8.camel@gmail.com \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=jhladky@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.