public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:02:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1257494539.20688.17.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257493130.16282.109.camel@ymzhang>


On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 15:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> Comparing with 2.6.31, specjbb2005 and aim7 have some regressions with
> 2.6.32-rc kernels on core2 machines.
> 
> 1) On 4*4 core tigerton: specjbb2005 has about 5% regression.
> 2) On 2*4 stoakley: aim7 has about 5% regression.
> 
> On Nehalem, specjbb2005 has about 2%~8%  improvement instead of regression.
> 
> aim7 has much dependency on schedule patameters, such like sched_latency_ns,
> sched_min_granularity_ns, and sched_wakeup_granularity_ns. 2.6.32-rc kernel
> decreases these parameter values. I restore them and retest aim7 on stoakley.
> aim7 regression becomes about 2% and specjbb2005 regression also becomes
> 2%. But on Nehalem, the improvement shrinks.

Yeah, the price of lower latency.  We may want to tweak big machine
setup a little.

Be advised that there's a locking problem which appears to be falsifying
benchmark results somewhat.  I've got a tentative fix, but I don't think
it's quite enough.  (I haven't looked yet at what protects cpus_allowed,
so aren't sure yet.)  Just wanted to let you know lest your testing time
investment may be producing somewhat skewed results, so you may want to
hold off a little bit.  (your testing time is much appreciated, don't
want to waste a single drop;)

	-Mike


  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-06  8:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-06  7:38 specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels Zhang, Yanmin
2009-11-06  8:02 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-11-06  8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-09  6:19   ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-11-09  7:09     ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-09  9:15       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-09  9:44         ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-11-09  9:57           ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-09  9:55         ` 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=1257494539.20688.17.camel@marge.simson.net \
    --to=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --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