lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Subjecttbench regression with 2.6.32-rc1
From
Date
Comparing with 2.6.31's results, tebench has some regression with
2.6.32-rc1.
COmmandline to start tbench:
#./tbench_srv &
#./tbench -t 600 CPU_NUM*2 127.0.0.1 #Use real cpu num to replace CPU_NUM
So start 2 client processes per cpu.

1) On 4*4 core tigerton: 30%;
2) On 2*4 core stoakley: 15%;
3) On 2*8 core Nehalem: 6%.

As there are couple of patches which try to turn on/off some sched domain
flags such like SD_BALANCE_WAKE, I used some walkaround to bisect it.
On tigerton, below patch is captured.
commit 59abf02644c45f1591e1374ee7bb45dc757fcb88
Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Wed Sep 16 08:28:30 2009 +0200

sched: Add SD_PREFER_LOCAL


The patch reverting is not clean, so I did some testing by turning on/off
some domain flags and sched_feaures manually.

1) On tigerton: if SD_PREFER_LOCAL=0 (disable it), the regression becomes about 2%.
2) On stoakley: if SD_PREFER_LOCAL=0 (disable it), the regression becomes about 4%.
3) On Nehalem: Above method couldn't improve result. I'm still checking it.

I also tried to turn on/off FAIR_SLEEPERS and GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS. It seems they
has limited impact on tbench. I need double check these 2 flags.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-09 11:57    [W:0.069 / U:2.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site