lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Performance regression of specjbb2005/aim7 with 2.6.29-rc1
From
Date
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 10:30 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 17:37 +0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:57 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > Comparing with 2.6.28's results, specjbb2005 has about 7% regression with 2.6.29-rc1
> > > on my a couple of x86_64 machines. aim7 has about 1.7% regression.
> > >
> > > Ming did a quick bisect with aim7 and located below patch.
> > >
> > > commit 0a582440ff546e2c6610d1acec325e91b4efd313
> > > Author: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> > > Date: Fri Jan 2 12:16:42 2009 +0100
> > >
> > > sched: fix sched_slice()
> > >
> > > Impact: fix bad-interactivity buglet
> > >
> > > Fix sched_slice() to emit a sane result whether a task is currently
> > > enqueued or not.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> > > Tested-by: Jayson King <dev@jaysonking.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > >
> > >
> > > After we revert the patch, aim7 regression disappeared. specjbb2005 regression becomes
> > > less than 1.5% on 8-core stokley and disappears on 16-core tigerton. I don't know what
> > > causes the last 1.5% regression.
> > >
> > > As tbench has about 5% improvement and oltp(mysql+sysbench) has 5% improvement, we also tested
> > > to make sure such improvement isn't related to above patch. volanoMark's improvement is also not
> > > related to the patch. So it seems safe to revert it.
> >
> > No, it's not safe to just revert. You can replace it with something
> > else, but as long as sched_slice() is called for unqueued tasks, it must
> > emit sane slices, otherwise you can experience a latency-hit-from-hell.
> >
> > See thread: problem with "sched: revert back to per-rq vruntime"?
>
> Below patch fixes aim7 regression and specjbb2005 regression becomes
> less than 1.5% on 8-core stokley.
>
> Jayson,
> Mike's patch fixed the latency problem you reported
> would you please help to test this patch to see if it still works fine now?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 8e1352c..617e54c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -429,10 +429,10 @@ static u64 sched_slice(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> u64 slice = __sched_period(cfs_rq->nr_running + !se->on_rq);
>
> for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> - struct load_weight *load = &cfs_rq->load;
> + struct load_weight *load = &cfs_rq_of(se)->load;
>
> if (unlikely(!se->on_rq)) {
> - struct load_weight lw = cfs_rq->load;
> + struct load_weight lw = cfs_rq_of(se)->load;
>
> update_load_add(&lw, se->load.weight);
> load = &lw;
>

Ugh, that's not making sense, the thing is, if !se->on_rq it doesn't yet
have a sensible cfs_rq_of().



--
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: 2009-01-15 08:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site