Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:47:23 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix the itimer regression (BZ 12618) |
| |
* Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 23:18 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 13:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This should hopefully address all the itimer borkage. > > > > > > > > Applied to tip:timers/urgent, thanks Peter! > > > > > > > > Yanmin: could you check hacbench_pth with latest tip/master, do > > > > these fixes resolve that 3% regression you reported? > > > > > > Lin Ming tested it and hackbench_pth/volanoMark regression all disappear. > > > But oltp has a regression. We think oltp new regression isn't related to > > > the patch. Ming is investigating it. > > > > Potential suspects for oltp regression would be: > > > > 3d39870: sched_rt: don't use first_cpu on cpumask created with cpumask_and > > a571bbe: sched: fix buddie group latency > > a9f3e2b: sched: clear buddies more aggressively > > 1596e29: sched: symmetric sync vs avg_overlap > > d942fb6: sched: fix sync wakeups > > I tested the latest tip-master branch. > After reverting "d942fb6: sched: fix sync wakeups", the oltp regression > on the 8cores Stockley machine is mostly fixed. > > On another 4*4 cores Tigerton machine, oltp has more than 10% regression > with 2.6.29-rc4 compared with 2.6.29-rc3.
ok, that commit needs fixed or reverted. Peter, Mike?
Ingo
| |