Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to 3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets - bisected | | From | Mike Galbraith <> | | Date | Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:47:25 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 12:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote: >
> > 4 socket 40 core + SMT Westmere box, single 30 sec tbench runs, higher is better: > > > > clients 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 > > .......................................................................... > > pre 30 41 118 645 3769 6214 12233 14312 > > post 299 603 1211 2418 4697 6847 11606 14557 > > That's a very tempting speedup for a simpler and more > fundamental workload than postgresql's somewhat weird > user-space spinlocks that burn CPU time in user-space > instead of blocking/waiting on a futex. > > IIRC mysql does this properly and outperforms postgresql > on this benchmark, in an apples-to-apples configuration?
It's been a while since I fiddled with oltp (lost my fast mysql db, every attempt to re-create produced a complete slug), but postgress was always the throughput winner at that here.
> > 10x at 1 pair shouldn't be traversal, the whole box is > > otherwise idle. We'll do a lot more (ever more futile) > > traversal as load increases, but at the same time, our futile > > attempts fail more frequently, so we shoot ourselves in the > > foot less frequently. > > > > The down side is (appears to be) that I also shut down some > > ~odd case preemption salvation, salvation that only large > > packages will receive. > > > > The problem as I see it is that we're making light tasks _too_ > > mobile, turning an optimization into a pessimization for light > > tasks. For longer running tasks this mobility within a large > > package isn't such a big deal, but for fast movers, it hurts a > > lot. > > There's not enough time to resolve this for v3.6, so I agree > with the revert - would you be willing to post a v2 of your > original patch? I really think we want your tbench speedups, > quite a few real-world messaging applications use the tbench > patterns of scheduling.
I don't know what a v2 would look like, but I can keep thinking about this irritating little <naughty words elided>. Peter's a lot hairier chested, not to mention having a sense of _taste_ :) so it might be better to just consider my patch a diagnostic, and let him fix it up in a (likely lots) less tummy distressing manner.
-Mike
|  |