From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Performance degredation with latest scheduler code
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:56:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <337010000.1086908187@flay> (raw)
Something messed with the sched peformance between the last copy I picked
up (2.6.5_rc3_mm1) and the stuff that got checked into mainline. I lose
about 17% througput on SDET at high loads, though it's slightly better at
VERY low loads (less processes than nodes). (OK, I'm kind of *assuming*
it's the scheduler, though that seems like by far the most obvious candidate)
Kernbench is worse at lower loads (processes ~= 2x CPUs)
Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.6.6-rc3-mjb3 44.90 79.80 586.18 1483.67
2.6.7-rc1-mjb1 45.34 101.04 574.67 1489.00
But actually a bit better at very high loads ...
Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.6.6-rc3-mjb3 45.56 91.59 590.72 1497.67
2.6.7-rc1-mjb1 44.24 89.98 574.73 1503.33
Diffprofile for kernbench (lower load)
14605 11.2% total
6027 154.2% __copy_from_user_ll
2908 64.8% __copy_to_user_ll
2148 241.6% finish_task_switch
1441 248.0% __wake_up
...
-1714 -3.4% default_idle
-1962 -11.5% do_anonymous_page
What the hell happened there? I'd guess it's the balance on wake stuff,
but removing it doesn't seem to help ... this was the part of the diff
I did to try to revert stuff, which didn't help:
--- 2.6.7-rc1/include/linux/sched.h 2004-05-27 16:22:38.000000000 -0700
+++ 2.6.7-rc1-fixsched/include/linux/sched.h 2004-06-10 09:43:03.000000000 -0700
@@ -630,10 +630,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
.cache_nice_tries = 1, \
.per_cpu_gain = 100, \
.flags = SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE \
- | SD_BALANCE_EXEC \
- | SD_BALANCE_CLONE \
- | SD_WAKE_AFFINE \
- | SD_WAKE_BALANCE, \
+ | SD_WAKE_AFFINE, \
.last_balance = jiffies, \
.balance_interval = 1, \
.nr_balance_failed = 0, \
@@ -646,15 +643,13 @@ struct sched_domain {
.parent = NULL, \
.groups = NULL, \
.min_interval = 8, \
- .max_interval = 32, \
+ .max_interval = 256*fls(num_online_cpus()),\
.busy_factor = 32, \
.imbalance_pct = 125, \
.cache_hot_time = (10*1000000), \
.cache_nice_tries = 1, \
.per_cpu_gain = 100, \
- .flags = SD_BALANCE_EXEC \
- | SD_BALANCE_CLONE \
- | SD_WAKE_BALANCE, \
+ .flags = SD_BALANCE_EXEC, \
.last_balance = jiffies, \
.balance_interval = 1, \
.nr_balance_failed = 0, \
reply other threads:[~2004-06-10 22:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=337010000.1086908187@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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.