lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to 3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets - bisected

    * Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:

    > On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 06:35 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    >
    > > Oh, while I'm thinking about it, there's another scenario
    > > that could cause the select_idle_sibling() change to affect
    > > pgbench on largeish packages, but it boils down to
    > > preemption odds as well. IIRC pgbench _was_ at least 1:N,
    > > ie one process driving the whole load. Waker of many
    > > (singularly bad idea as a way to generate load) being
    > > preempted by it's wakees stalls the whole load, so expensive
    > > spreading of wakees to the four winds ala WAKE_BALANCE
    > > becomes attractive, that pain being markedly less intense
    > > than having multiple cores go idle while creator or work
    > > waits for one.
    >
    > Enabling SMT on little E5620 box says that's the deal.
    > pgbench as run is 1:N, and all you have to do is disable
    > select_idle_sibling() entirely to see that for _this_ (~odd)
    > load, max spread and lower wakeup latency for the mother of
    > all work itself is a good thing.
    >
    > pgbench -i pgbench && pgbench -c $N -T 10 pgbench
    >
    > N= 1 2 4 8 16 32 64
    > 1336 2482 3752 3485 3327 2928 2290 virgin 3.6.0-rc6
    > 1408 2457 3363 3070 2938 2368 1757 +revert reverted
    > 1310 2492 2487 2729 2186 975 874 +revert + select_idle_sibling() disabled
    > 1407 2505 3422 3137 3093 2828 2250 +revert + schedctl -B /etc/init.d/postgresql restart
    > 1321 2403 2515 2759 2420 2301 1894 +revert + schedctl -B /etc/init.d/postgresql restart + select_idle_sibling() disabled
    >
    > Hohum, damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. Damn.

    As a test, could you mark that 'big PostgreSQL central work
    queue process' with some high priority (renice -20?), to make
    sure it's never preempted by wakees? Does that recover
    performance as well?

    Thanks,

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-09-19 17:41    [W:0.044 / U:0.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site