Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:05:00 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix the itimer regression (BZ 12618) |
| |
* Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 13:47 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 22:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * 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? > > > > Yanmin, is that tigerton regression also due to the sync changes? > Yes. > > > > > That is, if you revert both d942fb6 and 1596e29, does it get back to > > -rc3 state, > Yes. > > > or is the tigerton regression due to something else? > > This isn't quite clear to me. > > > > Ingo, if that is the case, I'm fine with reverting those changes for > > now, and have another look at them later on -- preferably when someone > > ships me a 4*4 machine so I can validate :-) > 2*4 stoakley has the similiar regression. To find potential scalability issues, > I run sysbench+mysql(oltp) with many thread numbers, such like 8,12,16,32,64,128, > then get an average value.
FYI, in Linus's latest tree (v2.6.29-rc4-175-gb578f3f or later), all the scheduler related performance regressions should be addressed.
Could you please double-check that there's no performance regression remaining?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |