[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: pipe performance regression on ia64

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:11:26 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds <> said:
> Linus> I don't know how to make the benchmark look repeatable and
> Linus> good, though. The CPU affinity thing may be the right thing.
> Perhaps it should be split up into three cases:
> - producer/consumer pinned to the same CPU
> - producer/consumer pinned to different CPUs
> - producer/consumer lefter under control of the scheduler
> The first two would let us observe any changes in the actual pipe
> code, whereas the 3rd case would tell us which case the scheduler is
> leaning towards (or if it starts doing something real crazy, like
> reschedule the tasks on different CPUs each time, we'd see a bandwith
> lower than case 2 and that should ring alarm bells).

Yes, that would be good.

However, I don't know who (if anybody) maintains lmbench any more. It
might be Carl Staelin (added to cc), and there used to be a mailing list
which may or may not be active any more..

[ Background for Carl (and/or lmbench-users):

The "pipe bandwidth" test ends up giving wildly fluctuating (and even
when stable, pretty nonsensical, since they depend very strongly on the
size of the buffer being used to do the writes vs the buffer size in the
kernel) numbers purely depending on where the reader/writer got

So a recent kernel buffer management change made lmbench numbers vary
radically, ranging from huge improvements to big decreases. It would be
useful to see the numbers as a function of CPU selection on SMP (the
same is probably true also for the scheduling latency benchmark, which
is also extremely unstable on SMP).

It's not just that it has big variance - you can't just average out many
runs. It has very "modal" operation, making averages meaningless.

A trivial thing that would work for most cases is just a simple (change
the "1" to whatever CPU-mask you want for some case)

long affinity = 1; /* bitmask: CPU0 only */
sched_setaffinity(0, sizeof(long), &affinity);

but I don't know what other OS's do, so it's obviously not portable ]


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.072 / U:28.420 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site