From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758275AbYELFEl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 01:04:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751752AbYELFEa (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 01:04:30 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([143.182.124.36]:28357 "EHLO azsmga102.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751543AbYELFEa (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 01:04:30 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,471,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="245378276" Subject: Re: volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1 From: "Zhang, Yanmin" To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Dhaval Giani , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Aneesh Kumar KV In-Reply-To: <20080512045246.GP3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20080506115207.GA24862@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080507173357.GA4424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1210223914.3453.102.camel@ymzhang> <20080508054047.GD32729@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1210226013.3453.113.camel@ymzhang> <20080508061125.GC3644@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080509155240.GH3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1210556351.3151.2.camel@ymzhang> <20080512023758.GN3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1210563200.3151.10.camel@ymzhang> <20080512045246.GP3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:02:13 +0800 Message-Id: <1210568533.3151.13.camel@ymzhang> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.21.5 (2.21.5-2.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 10:22 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:33:20AM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > To make the testing faster, I changed some parameters of volanoMark. > > The result of 2.6.26-rc1(CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED=y) is about 2%~3% less than the one of > > 2.6.25 (CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y). A quick update: With 2.6.26-rc2 (CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y), volanoMark result on my 8-core stoakley is about 10% worse than the one of 2.6.26-rc1. > > This for confirming my observation. It seems much better than the 50% regression > reported earlier (with 2.6.26-rc1 and CONFIG_USER_SCHED). > > Ideally we should get same results with CONFIG_USER_SCHED also (in > 2.6.26-rc1). That needs some work in load balance code. Till that is > tackled, IMHO we can retain all the current code by either: > > 1. Disabling CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED (or better) > 2. Enable CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED and CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED > > Ingo/Peter, What's your opinion? >