From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:57:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20081117110119.GL28786@elte.hu> <20081117.112157.146825192.davem@davemloft.net> <20081117.115258.227376348.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081117.115258.227376348.davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Miller Cc: mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cl-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, efault-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org, a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, David Miller wrote: > > And as a result I found that wake_up() is now 4 times slower than it > was in 2.6.22, I even analyzed this for every single kernel release > till now. ..and that's the one where you then pointed to hrtimers, and now you claim that was fixed? At least I haven't seen any new analysis since then. > It could be a sparc specific issue, because the call chain is deeper > and we eat a lot more register window spills onto the stack. Oh, easily. In-order machines tend to have serious problems with indirect function calls in particular. x86, in contrast, tends to not even notice, especially if the indirect function is fairly static per call-site, and predicts well. There is a reason my machine is 15-20 times faster than yours. Linus