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
next prev parent 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