public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:22:38 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43D5C7AE.6040207@bigpond.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43D5AFF9.10608@google.com>

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
>> Oops.  I was looking at the graphs for Moe but 
>> <http://test.kernel.org/perf/dbench.elm3b132.png> doesn't appear to be 
>> demonstrating a problem either.  Given the fluctuation in the 
>> 2.6.16-rc1 results (235, 234, 211, 228.5 and 237.5), the results for 
>> 2.6.16-rc1-mm1 (229) and 2.6.16-mm2 (219) aren't significantly different.
> 
> 
> I disagree. Look at the graph. mm results are consistent and stable, and 
> significantly worse than mainline.
> 
>> Peter
>> PS I have a modification for kernbench that calculates and displays 
>> the standard deviations for the various averages if you're 
>> interested.  This would enable you to display 95% (say) confidence 
>> bars on the graphed results which in turn makes it easier to spot 
>> significant differences.
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I have that. What do you think those vertical bars on the 
> graph are for? ;-) They're deviation of 5 runs. I throw away the best 
> and worst first.

Not very good scientific practice :-)

> If it was just random noise, then you'd get the same 
> variance *between* runs inside the -mm train and inside mainline. You 
> don't see that ...

I was still looking at the wrong graph this time the dbench instead of 
kernbench :-( (explains why I didn't see the error bars).  Now I see it.

Looking at the other 6 kernbench graphs, I see that it also occurs for 
elm3b70 but no others (including elm3b6 and elm3b67).  Are there any 
differences between the various elm3b systems that could explain this?

> Use the visuals in the graph .. it's very telling. -mm is *broken*.
> It may well not be the same issue as last time though, I shouldn't
> have jumped to that conclusion.

It's very hard to understand how it could be an issue on a system that 
doesn't have a lot of abnormally niced (i.e. non zero) tasks that are 
fairly active as it's now mathematically equivalent to the original in 
the absence of such tasks.  Do these two systems have many such tasks 
running?

Would it be possible to get a run with the following patches backed out:

+sched-modified-nice-support-for-smp-load-balancing-fix.patch
+sched-modified-nice-support-for-smp-load-balancing-fix-fix.patch

Thanks
Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce

  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-24  6:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-01-11  1:14 -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Martin Bligh
2006-01-11  1:31 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11  1:41   ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11  1:48     ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11  1:49     ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11  2:38       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  3:07         ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11  3:12           ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11  3:40           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  3:49             ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11  4:33               ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  5:14             ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  6:21               ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-11 12:24                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 14:29                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 22:05                     ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  0:54                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  1:18                         ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  1:29                           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  1:36                             ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  2:23                               ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  2:26                                 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12  6:39                                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-23 19:28                                     ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-24  1:25                                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24  3:50                                         ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24  4:41                                           ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-24  6:22                                             ` Peter Williams [this message]
2006-01-24  6:42                                               ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-28 23:20                                                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-29  0:52                                                   ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12  2:27                                 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  2:04                           ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12  6:35                             ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12  6:41                               ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  6:54                                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 18:39                         ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 20:03                           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 22:20                             ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13  7:06                               ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 12:00                                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 16:15                                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-13 16:26                                 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 17:54                                   ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 20:41                                     ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-14  0:23                                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14  5:03                                         ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14  5:40                                           ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-14  6:05                                             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14  5:53                                           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14  6:13                                             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-13 22:59                                     ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 18:48                                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-15  0:05                                   ` Peter Williams
2006-01-15  2:04                                     ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-15  2:09                                     ` [PATCH] sched - remove unnecessary smpnice ifdefs Con Kolivas
2006-01-15  3:50                                     ` -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Ingo Molnar
2006-01-12  1:25                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  1:52     ` Andrew Morton

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=43D5C7AE.6040207@bigpond.net.au \
    --to=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=apw@shadowen.org \
    --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@google.com \
    --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