lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [revert] mysql+oltp regression
    Gregory Haskins wrote:
    > Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> Speaking of this: Another patch I submitted to you Ingo (had to do
    >>>>> with updating the load_weight inside task_setprio) seems to also
    >>>>> have this phenomenon: e.g. its technically correct but further
    >>>>> testing has revealed negative repercussions elsewhere. So please
    >>>>> ignore that patch (or revert if you already pulled in, but I don't
    >>>>> think you have). Ill try to look into this issue as well.
    >>>>>
    >>>> ok, under which thread/subject is that? Not queued in tip/sched/*
    >>>> yet, correct?
    >>>>
    >>> Here is the original thread:
    >>>
    >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/416
    >>>
    >>> I do not believe you have queued it anywhere (public anyway) yet.
    >>>
    >>> Note I have already invalidated 1/2, and now I am retracting 2/2 as
    >>> well. (1/2 is actually a bogus patch, 2/2 is "technically correct"
    >>> but causes ripples in the load balancer that need to be sorted out
    >>> first.
    >>>
    >>
    >> ok, thanks. I'm curious, what are those ripple effects? Stability or
    >> performance?
    >>
    >
    > Performance. I found it while working on my pi series (which fyi I
    > should have a v2 refresh for soon, probably today...i am hoping to get
    > some review feedback from you on that as well, time permitting of
    > course ;).
    >
    > Basically the behavior I was observing was that kernel builds via
    > distcc would cluster all the cc1 jobs on a single core. At first I
    > thought my pi-series was screwed up, but then I realized I had applied
    > the patch referenced above earlier in my development tree, and
    > removing it allowed pi to work fine.
    >
    > I found the problem with in once boot cycle with ftrace (thanks Steve!).

    Hmm..Im not sure what went wrong between brain and hand above, but of
    course I meant to say ".. within one boot cycle ..", not "with in
    once". Heh.


    > Basically newidle balancing was always returning "no imbalance" even
    > though I had 32 cc1 threads on 1 core, and 3 idle cores. Clearly not
    > correct! So I think that by adjusting the load up, we throw off the
    > hysteresis built into the load averages and cause the system to
    > incorrectly think it's balanced. TBD.
    >
    > -Greg
    >
    >
    >> Ingo
    >>
    >
    >


    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-11 15:33    [W:0.025 / U:126.304 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site