From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hackbench [pthread mode] regression with 2.6.29-rc3
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:17:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1233479836.4787.63.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1233476961.13659.12.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com>
On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 16:29 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > Bisect located below patch.
> > commit 490dea45d00f01847ebebd007685d564aaf2cd98
> > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Date: Mon Nov 24 17:06:57 2008 +0100
> >
> > itimers: remove the per-cpu-ish-ness
> >
> > Either we bounce once cacheline per cpu per tick, yielding n^2 bounces
> > or we just bounce a single..
> >
> > Also, using per-cpu allocations for the thread-groups complicates the
> > per-cpu allocator in that its currently aimed to be a fixed sized
> > allocator and the only possible extention to that would be vmap based,
> > which is seriously constrained on 32 bit archs.
> >
> >
> > After above patch is reverted, hackbench result is restored.
>
> oltp has ~3% regression with 2.6.29-rc3 on 4core*2p stokley machine.
> After above patch reverted, the regression disappeared.
*sigh*, did they gain anything with introduction of the per-cpu crap?
f06febc96ba8e0af80bcc3eaec0a109e88275fac
5ce73a4a5a4893a1aa4cdeed1b1a5a6de42c43b6
bb34d92f643086d546b49cef680f6f305ed84414
ad133ba3dc283300e5b62b5b7211d2f39fbf6ee7
ce394471d13bf071939a9a0b48c64c297676d233
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-01 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-01 7:30 hackbench [pthread mode] regression with 2.6.29-rc3 Zhang, Yanmin
[not found] ` <d3f22a0902010026q1db36381j36cb1c9803d48431@mail.gmail.com>
2009-02-01 8:29 ` Lin Ming
2009-02-01 9:17 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-02-01 9:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-01 10:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-02 1:12 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-02-02 8:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-02 17:49 ` Bryon Roche
2009-02-02 20:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-03 11:56 ` [RFC] process wide itimer cruft Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-03 17:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-02-03 17:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-03 18:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=1233479836.4787.63.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
/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