From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752979Ab3GAIGt (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 04:06:49 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:33329 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752457Ab3GAIGs (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 04:06:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:06:38 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Mike Galbraith Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: sched: context tracking demolishes pipe-test Message-ID: <20130701080638.GM6626@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1372579056.6607.16.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130630212940.GK6626@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1372658875.7678.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1372658875.7678.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 08:07:55AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 23:29 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Yeah, who'd have thought that putting stuff in the syscall path would've > > made syscalls more expensive ;-) > > (careful, you'll injure my innocence, Santa and the Tooth Fairy exist!) > > > But yeah, that's a _lot_ more expensive.. I'd not be surprised if more > > people would find that objectionable. > > Distros may want some hot patching or _something_ before doing the usual > new=turn-it-on thing. Per trusty (spelled with 'c') old Q6600, the cost > is pretty darn high. > > -regress is my ~light regression testing config, carried forward from > 3.6.32...master across all intervening trees. > -regressx is plus CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS=y CONFIG_CONTEXT_TRACKING_FORCE=y > -regressxx is plus full dynticks > > taskset -c 3 pipe-test 1 > > 2.6.32-regress 654.5 Khz 1.000 > 3.10.0-regress 652.1 Khz .996 1.000 > 3.10.0-regressx 476.8 Khz .728 .731 > 3.10.0-regressxx 275.6 Khz .421 .422 > > tbench > > 2.6.32-regress 327.502 MB/sec 1.000 > 3.10.0-regress 319.621 MB/sec .975 1.000 > 3.10.0-regressx 292.894 MB/sec .894 .916 > 3.10.0-regressxx 243.738 MB/sec .744 .762 > > netperf TCP_RR > > 2.6.32-regress 104041.84 Trans/sec 1.000 > 3.10.0-regress 94961.34 Trans/sec .912 1.000 > 3.10.0-regressx 82383.33 Trans/sec .791 .867 > 3.10.0-regressxx 61527.59 Trans/sec .591 .647 So aside from the context tracking stuff, there's still a regression we might want to look at. That's still a ~10% drop against 2.6.32 for TCP_RR and few percents for tbench.