From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752446Ab2IYDUl (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:20:41 -0400 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:34148 "HELO mailout-de.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751677Ab2IYDUk (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:20:40 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19YR7JqHVNY6/KVRADZAr0Tpz76mA+Y/ce42eZftn r9stM6l84Js9KY Message-ID: <1348543235.7100.44.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to 3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets - bisected From: Mike Galbraith To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Nikolay Ulyanitsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andreas Herrmann , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Suresh Siddha Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:20:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <20120914212717.GA29307@liondog.tnic> <20120924150048.GB11266@suse.de> <1348500647.11847.69.camel@twins> <1348503163.11847.97.camel@twins> <1348505683.11847.111.camel@twins> <1348511193.6951.44.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20120924192056.GB4082@liondog.tnic> <1348538258.7100.23.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1348541366.7100.39.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 20:10 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > Ah. That's what I did to select_idle_sibling() in a nutshell, converted > > the problematic large L3 packages into multiple ~core2duo pairs, modulo > > shared L2 'course. Bounce proof, and on Westmere, the jabbering back > > and forth in L3 somehow doesn't hurt as much as expected, so the things > > act (more or less, L2 traffic _does_ matter;) like the real deal. > > Right. But your patch *only* looked at the pair. > > Which may be bounce-proof, but we also saw that it was unacceptable. Yes. Cross wiring traverse _start_ points should eliminate (well, damp) bounce as well without killing the 1:N latency/preempt benefits of large L3 packages. You'll still take a lot of L2 misses while doing futile traverse when fully committed, but that's a separate issue. -Mike