lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Idle power fix regresses ebizzy performance (was 3.12-stable backport of NUMA balancing patches)
From
Date
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 02:31 -0500, Len Brown wrote: 
> > This is a false alarm.
>
> Thanks for the follow-up, Mel.
>
> Agreed, it makes no sense for ebizzy measure 'throughput', when a
> library debug bottleneck
> prevents it from scaling past 3% CPU utilization.
>
> Still, the broken configuration did find a difference due to the
> addition of CLFLUSH on this box.
> It makes me wonder if we will find issues on workloads that may depend
> on the latency
> of idle entry/exit, or perhaps sensitivity to the state of the cache
> line containing thread_info->flags.
>
> If somebody runs into such a workload, please try changing this 1 line
> of intel_idle.c to limit
> the CLFLUSH to C-states deeper than C1E, and let me know what you see.
>
> - if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH_MONITOR))
> + if ((eax > 1) && this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH_MONITOR))
> clflush((void *)&current_thread_info()->flags);

Hm, seems any high frequency switcher scheduling cross-core (pipe-test,
or maybe a tbench pair) should show the cost to an affected box.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-14 09:41    [W:0.068 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site