From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753468AbYHKNb4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:31:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751538AbYHKNbp (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:31:45 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:52052 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751511AbYHKNbo (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:31:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:31:26 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Mike Galbraith , LKML , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [revert] mysql+oltp regression Message-ID: <20080811133126.GC14474@elte.hu> References: <1218454322.25098.24.camel@marge.simson.net> <20080811114324.GA23529@elte.hu> <48A03049.202@novell.com> <20080811124857.GD10082@elte.hu> <48A038A6.4010104@novell.com> <20080811131400.GA909@elte.hu> <48A03C6E.60303@novell.com> <48A03E28.9040801@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48A03E28.9040801@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Gregory Haskins wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> * Gregory Haskins wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> Speaking of this: Another patch I submitted to you Ingo (had to >>>>>> do with updating the load_weight inside task_setprio) seems to >>>>>> also have this phenomenon: e.g. its technically correct but >>>>>> further testing has revealed negative repercussions elsewhere. >>>>>> So please ignore that patch (or revert if you already pulled >>>>>> in, but I don't think you have). Ill try to look into this >>>>>> issue as well. >>>>>> >>>>> ok, under which thread/subject is that? Not queued in tip/sched/* >>>>> yet, correct? >>>>> >>>> Here is the original thread: >>>> >>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/416 >>>> >>>> I do not believe you have queued it anywhere (public anyway) yet. >>>> >>>> Note I have already invalidated 1/2, and now I am retracting 2/2 as >>>> well. (1/2 is actually a bogus patch, 2/2 is "technically correct" >>>> but causes ripples in the load balancer that need to be sorted out >>>> first. >>>> >>> >>> ok, thanks. I'm curious, what are those ripple effects? Stability or >>> performance? >>> >> >> Performance. I found it while working on my pi series (which fyi I >> should have a v2 refresh for soon, probably today...i am hoping to get >> some review feedback from you on that as well, time permitting of >> course ;). >> >> Basically the behavior I was observing was that kernel builds via >> distcc would cluster all the cc1 jobs on a single core. At first I >> thought my pi-series was screwed up, but then I realized I had applied >> the patch referenced above earlier in my development tree, and >> removing it allowed pi to work fine. >> >> I found the problem with in once boot cycle with ftrace (thanks Steve!). > > Hmm..Im not sure what went wrong between brain and hand above, but of > course I meant to say ".. within one boot cycle ..", not "with in > once". Heh. my second reading of that sentence auto-corrected it to your intented version ;-) Ingo