From: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
To: Michael Meyer <mike65134@yahoo.de>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: performance differences: "maxcpus=1" vs. "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online"
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:27:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200803251927.14211.lenb@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57127.43039.qm@web25812.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Michael Meyer wrote:
>
> --- Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> schrieb:
>
> > Luciano Rocha <luciano@eurotux.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:47:50PM +0100, Michael
> > Meyer wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > what is the difference between booting a dual
> > core
> > > > machine with "maxcpus=1" or by deactivating the
> > second
> > > > core at run time with "echo 0 >
> > > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online"?
> > >
> > > maxcpus=1 should turn off the SMP alternative and
> > switch to UP only,
> > > optimising some locks and instructions.
> >
> > CPU hot unplug will do the same. But it is unlikely
> > it accounts
> > for that much performance difference.
> >
> > If he used maxcpus=0 it would make sense. maxcpus=0
> > disables
> > the IO-APIC which likely makes a large difference.
> > But it should
> > be actually slower.
> >
> > There should be actually no difference in theory
> > between max_cpus=1
> > and hot unplug to one CPU. Might be some bug.
>
> I had the following time values:
>
> maxcpus=1:
> real 0m1.642s
> user 0m1.528s
> sys 0m0.068s
>
> maxcpus=2 and
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online:
> real 0m2.579s
> user 0m4.096s
> sys 0m0.160s
this above is the baseline, yes?
it is same as if you used no boot param
and did not touch the online file, yes?
> maxcpus=2 and
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online:
> real 0m3.757s
> user 0m3.632s
> sys 0m0.112s
Please post the contents of
# grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/*
and also
grep . /proc/acpi/processor/*/power
My guess that the maxcpus=1 case benefits from turbo mode, aka EIDA.
That benefit, however, is subject to this bug:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5471
because for a single thread to run faster than the marketing MHz,
the other thread must be in deep-idle, which is prevented
by the bug above.
If your scaling_available_frequencies includes 2401000
then you probably have a turbo-mode enabled processor.
one way to verify this would be to disable turbo mode
by pegging the MHz like so:
# echo 2400000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_max_freq
# echo 2400000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/cpuinfo_max_freq
-Len
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-25 23:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-25 13:47 performance differences: "maxcpus=1" vs. "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online" Michael Meyer
2008-03-25 14:08 ` Luciano Rocha
2008-03-25 16:38 ` Michael Meyer
2008-03-25 17:16 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-25 17:23 ` Michael Meyer
2008-03-25 17:49 ` Wander Winkelhorst
2008-03-25 17:56 ` Michael Meyer
2008-03-25 17:57 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-25 23:27 ` Len Brown [this message]
2008-03-26 7:26 ` Michael Meyer
2008-03-28 14:00 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-28 13:59 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-29 20:55 ` Michael Meyer
2008-03-29 21:22 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-29 22:16 ` Michael Meyer
2008-04-02 11:31 ` Pavel Machek
2008-03-29 23:22 ` Bernd Eckenfels
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=200803251927.14211.lenb@kernel.org \
--to=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mike65134@yahoo.de \
/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