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: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:20:20 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43DBFC34.3010003@bigpond.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43D5CC4F.3000300@google.com>

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
>>> 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 :-)
> 
> 
> 
> Bollocks to scientific practice ;-) It works, it produces very stable 
> results, has done for a few years now. Things like cron or sunspots can 
> kick in. Yes, yes, I did stats at University ... but the real world 
> doesn't work like that. The visuals in the graph speak for 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?
>>
> Yes. They're all completely different architectures - there's a brief 
> description at the top of the main page. elm3b67 should be ignored, nay 
> thrown out of the window. It's an unstable POS that randomly loses 
> processors. I've removed it from the pages.
> 
> elm3b70 is PPC64 (8 cpu)
> elm3b6 is x86_64.
> elm3b132 is a 4x SMP ia32 Pentium 3.
> moe is 16x NUMA-Q (ia32).
> gekko-lp1 is a 2x PPC blade.
> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that should prove or disprove it. It's probably something 
> completely un-scheduler-related ;-)
> 
> M.

Looking at the latest results for 2.6.16-rc1-mm3, it appears to me that 
this is no longer an issue.  Do you agree?

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

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

  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-28 23:20 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
2006-01-24  6:42                                               ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-28 23:20                                                 ` Peter Williams [this message]
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=43DBFC34.3010003@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