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 <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:

    > 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.

    my second reading of that sentence auto-corrected it to your intented
    version ;-)

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-11 15:35    [W:0.030 / U:29.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site