lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Bugme-new] [Bug 12562] New: High overhead while switching or synchronizing threads on different cores
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:56 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
> bugzilla web interface).
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:35:20 -0800 (PST)
> bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
>
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12562
> >
> > Summary: High overhead while switching or synchronizing threads
> > on different cores
>
> Thanks for the report, and the testcase.
>
> > Product: Process Management
> > Version: 2.5
> > KernelVersion: 2.6.28
> > Platform: All
> > OS/Version: Linux
> > Tree: Mainline
> > Status: NEW
> > Severity: normal
> > Priority: P1
> > Component: Scheduler
> > AssignedTo: mingo@elte.hu
> > ReportedBy: thomas.pi@arcor.de
>
> (There's testcase code in the bugzilla report)
>
> (Seems to be a regression)

Is there a known good kernel?

> >
> > Hardware Environment: Core2Duo 2.4GHz / 4GB RAM
> > Software Environment: Ubuntu 8.10 + Vanilla 2.6.28
> >
> > Hardware Environment: AMD64 X2 2.1GHz / 6GB RAM
> > Software Environment: Ubuntu 8.10 + Vanilla 2.6.28.2
> >
> > Problem Description:
> > The overhead on a dual core while switching between tasks is extremely high
> > (>60% of cputime). If is produced by synchronization with pthread and
> > mutex/cond.
> >
> > Executing the attaches program schedulingissue 1 1024 8 20, which create a
> > producer and a consumer thread with eight 8kb big buffers. The producer creates
> > 1024 random generated double values, consumer makes the same after receiving
> > the buffer.
> >
> > While executing the program the thoughtput is ~1.6 msg/s. While executing two
> > instances of the program, the thoughtput is much higher (2 * 8.7 msg/s = 17,4
> > msg/s).
> >
> > Small improvement while using jiffies as clocksource instead of acpi_pm or hpet
> > (1.8 messages instead of 1.6). Disabling NO_HZ and HIGH_RESOLUTION_TIME gives
> > no improvement. Much higher performance with kernel <= 2.6.24, but still four
> > times slower.
>
> Unclear. What is four times slower than what? You're saying that the
> app progresses four times faster when there are two instances of it
> running, rather than one instance?

It seems that way indeed, a bit more clarity would be good though.

> > ---------------------------------------
> > Linux bugs-laptop 2.6.28-hz-hrt #4 SMP Wed Jan 28 13:33:18 CET 2009 x86_64
> > GNU/Linux
> > acpi_pm (equal with htep)
> > schedulerissue 1 1024 8 20
> > All threads finished: 20 messages in 12.295 seconds / 1.627 msg/s
> > schedulerissue 1 1024 8 200 & schedulerissue 1 1024 8 200
> > All threads finished: 200 messages in 22.882 seconds / 8.741 msg/s
> > All threads finished: 200 messages in 22.934 seconds / 8.721 msg/s
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Linux bugs-laptop 2.6.28-hz-hrt #4 SMP Wed Jan 28 13:33:18 CET 2009 x86_64
> > GNU/Linux
> > jiffies
> > schedulerissue 1 1024 8 20
> > All threads finished: 20 messages in 10.704 seconds / 1.868 msg/s
> > schedulerissue 1 1024 8 200 & schedulerissue 1 1024 8 200
> > All threads finished: 200 messages in 23.372 seconds / 8.557 msg/s
> > All threads finished: 200 messages in 23.460 seconds / 8.525 msg/s
> > --------------------------------------
> > Linux bugs-laptop 2.6.24.7 #1 SMP Wed Jan 14 10:21:04 CET 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > hpet
> > schedulerissue 1 1024 8 20
> > All threads finished: 20 messages in 5.290 seconds / 3.781 msg/s
> > schedulerissue 1 1024 8 200 & schedulerissue 1 1024 8 200
> > All threads finished: 200 messages in 23.000 seconds / 8.695 msg/s
> > All threads finished: 200 messages in 23.078 seconds / 8.666 msg/s
> >
>
> Seems that 2.6.24 is faster than 2.6.28 with 20 messages, but 2.6.24
> and 2.6.28 run at the same speed when 200 messages are sent?
>
> If so, that seems rather odd, doesn't it? Is it possible that cpufreq
> does something bad once the CPU gets hot?

Nah, I'll bet is a cache affinity issue.

Some applications like strong wakeup affinity, others not so. This looks
to be a lover.

With a single instance, the producer and consumer get scheduled on two
different cores for some reason (maybe wake idle too strong).
With two instances, they get to stay on the same cpu, since the other
cpu is already busy.

I'll start up the browser in the morning to download this proglet and
poke at it some, but sleep comes first.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-28 23:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans