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>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: hackbench regression with kernel 2.6.32-rc1
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:26:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1256797608.16282.28.camel@ymzhang> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1256795190.7048.63.camel@marge.simson.net>
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 06:46 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 08:50 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 15:22 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 17:29 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > > -Mike
> > > > I'm investigating 5% tbench regression on Nehalem machine. perf_counter shows
> > > > select_task_rq_fair consumes about 5% cpu time with 2.6.32-rc1 while it consumes
> > > > less than 0.5% with 2.6.31.
> > > >
> > > > Patch c88d5910890 has comments to explain it, but I still can't understand why
> > > > to add complicated balance logic when selecting task rq.
> > > >
> > > > I will check which section in function select_task_rq_fair consumes so much time.
> > >
> > > Turn off SD_WAKE_BALANCE as it was called in rc1. See commit 182a85f.
> > I run testing against 2.6.32-rc1 which already includes the patch.
>
> Duh, I checked the wrong tree.
>
> SD_PREFER_LOCAL is still on in rc1 though (double checks;), so you'll go
> through the power saving code until you reach a domain containing both
> waker's cpu and wakee's previous cpu even if that code already found
> that a higher domain wasn't overloaded. Looks to me like that block
> wants a want_sd && qualifier.
>
> Even it you turn SD_PREFER_LOCAL off, you can still hit the overhead if
> SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE is set, so I'd make sure both are off and see if
> that's the source (likely, since the rest is already off).
Yes. SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE is disabled by default. I applied Peter's patch which
turning SD_PREFER_LOCAL off for MC and cpu domain and it doesn't help.
perf counter shows select_task_rq_fair still consumes about 5% cpu time. Eventually,
I found for_each_cpu in for_each_domain consumes the 5% cpu time, because Peter's
patch doesn't turn off SD_PREFER_LOCAL for node domain.
I turned it off for node domain against the latest tips tree and tbench regression
disappears on a Nehalem machine and becomes about 2% on another one.
Can we turn it off for node domain by default?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-29 6:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-09 9:19 hackbench regression with kernel 2.6.32-rc1 Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-09 10:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-12 7:05 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-12 8:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-12 14:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-12 14:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-13 3:12 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-13 9:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-13 11:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-16 11:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-27 8:03 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-27 14:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-28 9:29 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-28 14:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 0:50 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-29 5:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-29 6:26 ` Zhang, Yanmin [this message]
2009-10-29 9:14 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2009-10-30 2:02 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-10-14 13:13 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Do less agressive buddy clearing tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
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=1256797608.16282.28.camel@ymzhang \
--to=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox