lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions
From
Date
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 15:11 -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 17:22 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > There's perhaps one thing that might help us to see whether it's just a
> > benchmark effekt or a real problem:
> >
> > With Tim's CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8, NR_IRQS only increases from 224 in 2.6.18
> > to 512 in 2.6.19-rc.
> >
> > With CONFIG_NR_CPUS=255, NR_IRQS increases from 224 in 2.6.18
> > to 8416 in 2.6.19-rc.
> >
> > @Tim:
> > Can you try CONFIG_NR_CPUS=255 with both 2.6.18 and 2.6.19-rc5?
> >
>
> With CONFIG_NR_CPUS increased from 8 to 64:
> 2.6.18 see no change in fork time measured.
> 2.6.19-rc5 see a 138% increase in fork time.
>

Lmbench is broken in its fork time measurement.
It includes overhead time when it is pinning processes onto
specific cpu. The actual fork time is not affected by NR_IRQS.

Lmbench calls the following C library function to determine the
number of processors online before it pin the processes:
sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN);

This function takes the same order of time to run as
fork itself. In addition, runtime of this function
increases with NR_IRQS. This resulted in the change in
time measured.

After hardcoding the number of online processors in lmbench,
the fork time measured now does not change with CONFIG_NR_CPUS
for both 2.6.18 and 2.6.19-rc5. So we can now conclude that
NR_IRQS does not affect fork. We can remove this particular
issue from the known regression.

Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-09 04:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site