From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hackbench regression with 2.6.26-rc2 on tulsa machine
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:54:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1211345650.3177.247.camel@ymzhang> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1211275352.24305.6.camel@marge.simson.net>
On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 11:22 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 16:09 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > Comparing with 2.6.26-rc1, hackbench has about 30% regression with 2.6.26-rc2 on my tulsa machine
> > which is a netburst architecure hyper-threading x86_64.
> >
> > Command line to test: #hackbench 100 process 2000
> >
> > With 2.6.26-rc1, it takes 30 seconds. But with 2.6.26-rc2/rc3, it takes 40 seconds.
> >
> > Bisect located below patch:
> > 46151122e0a2e80e5a6b2889f595e371fe2b600d is first bad commit
> > commit 46151122e0a2e80e5a6b2889f595e371fe2b600d
> > Author: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> > Date: Thu May 8 17:00:42 2008 +0200
> >
> > sched: fix weight calculations
> >
> > The conversion between virtual and real time is as follows:
> >
> > dvt = rw/w * dt <=> dt = w/rw * dvt
> >
> > Since we want the fair sleeper granularity to be in real time, we actually
> > need to do:
> >
> > dvt = - rw/w * l
> >
> >
> >
> > The bisect steps look stable.
> >
> > On my core architecure machines(stoakley and tigerton), I do see improvement instead of regression,
> > like result from 31 seconds down to 28 seconds.
> >
> > I'm not sure if hyper-threading need more cares in this situation.
>
> Oh joy. I'll update my poor old P4 and see what I can duplicate this.
>
> Do you still have group scheduling enabled?
Yes.
CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED=y
CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED=y
# CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED is not set
CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y
# CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED is not set
> If so, can you turn it off
> and try again? (when in doubt, grasp at any straw within reach;)
I reran the test for dozeons of times.
1) Background processes have impact on the result and cause result to fluctuate with 8~9 seconds;
2) After turning off most services (background processes), the result looks stable;
3) I tested both 2.6.26-rc1 and 2.6.26-rc2 with CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED=n. the first one's result
is about 30 seconds and the second one's result is about 31 seconds. So CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED is the key.
The previous results wree got with turning off most background processes.
I'm busy in other issues.
-yanmin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-21 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-20 8:09 hackbench regression with 2.6.26-rc2 on tulsa machine Zhang, Yanmin
2008-05-20 9:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-05-21 4:54 ` Zhang, Yanmin [this message]
2008-05-21 5:19 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1211345650.3177.247.camel@ymzhang \
--to=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox