From: Jie Chen <chen@jlab.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:39:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <475EBD30.1010506@jlab.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071211155226.GA1056@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jie Chen <chen@jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Ingo:
>>
>> I guess it is a good news. I did patch 2.6.21.7 kernel using your cfs
>> patch. The results of pthread_sync is the same as the non-patched
>> 2.6.21 kernel. This means the performance of is not related to the
>> scheduler. As for overhead of the gettimeofday, there is no difference
>> between 2.6.21 and 2.6.24-rc4. The reference time is around 10.5 us
>> for both kernel.
>
> could you please paste again the relevant portion of the output you get
> on a "good" .21 kernel versus the output you get on a "bad" .24 kernel?
>
>> So what is changed between 2.6.21 and 2.6.22? Any hints :-). Thank you
>> very much for all your help.
>
> we'll figure it out i'm sure :)
>
> Ingo
Hi, Ingo:
The following is pthread_sync output for 2.6.21.7-cfs-v24 #1 SMP kernel.
2 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.489085 10.488800 10.491100 0.000539 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.489085 microseconds +/- 0.001057
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 11.106580 11.105650 11.109700 0.001255 0
PARALLEL time = 11.106580 microseconds +/- 0.002460
PARALLEL overhead = 0.617590 microseconds +/- 0.003409
8 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.488735 10.488500 10.490700 0.000484 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.488735 microseconds +/- 0.000948
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 13.000647 12.991050 13.052700 0.012592 1
PARALLEL time = 13.000647 microseconds +/- 0.024680
PARALLEL overhead = 2.511907 microseconds +/- 0.025594
Output for Kernel 2.6.24-rc4 #1 SMP
2 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.510535 10.508600 10.518200 0.002237 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.510535 microseconds +/- 0.004384
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 19.668450 19.650200 19.679650 0.008052 0
PARALLEL time = 19.668450 microseconds +/- 0.015782
PARALLEL overhead = 9.157945 microseconds +/- 0.018217
8 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.491285 10.490100 10.494900 0.001085 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.491285 microseconds +/- 0.002127
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 13.090080 13.079150 13.131450 0.010995 1
PARALLEL time = 13.090080 microseconds +/- 0.021550
PARALLEL overhead = 2.598590 microseconds +/- 0.024534
For 8 threads, both kernels have the similar performance number. But for
2 threads, the 2.6.21 is much better than 2.6.24-rc4. Thank you.
--
###############################################
Jie Chen
Scientific Computing Group
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
12000, Jefferson Ave.
Newport News, VA 23606
(757)269-5046 (office) (757)269-6248 (fax)
chen@jlab.org
###############################################
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-11 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-21 20:34 Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Jie Chen
2007-11-21 22:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-11-22 1:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-11-22 2:32 ` Simon Holm Thøgersen
2007-11-22 2:58 ` Jie Chen
2007-11-22 20:19 ` Matt Mackall
2007-12-04 13:17 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4 Ingo Molnar
2007-12-04 15:41 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:22 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 17:47 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:23 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 21:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 22:16 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-06 10:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-06 16:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-10 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-10 20:04 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 10:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 15:28 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 15:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 16:39 ` Jie Chen [this message]
2007-12-11 21:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 22:11 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-12 12:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:36 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:53 ` Jie Chen
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=475EBD30.1010506@jlab.org \
--to=chen@jlab.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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.