Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:24:55 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 09:40 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> The WAKE_WIDE_IDLE run was basically the same so I'm good with the KISS > version. I'll run that through the load tests this morning and let you > know how it goes. I'm still seeing a slight regression at lower RPS, > but it's like 1-2%, compared to ~15%.
If I'm to believe pgbench, and configs really are as close as they should be, there may be something between 3.12 and master which could account for your delta and then some. I may go hunting.. heck, if I trusted pgbench I would be hunting.
patched SLE (resembles 3.12 if you squint) postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh clients 12 tps = 134795.901777 clients 24 tps = 156955.584523 clients 36 tps = 161450.044316 clients 48 tps = 171181.069044 clients 60 tps = 157896.858179 clients 72 tps = 155816.051709 clients 84 tps = 152456.003468 clients 96 tps = 121129.848008
patched master postgres@nessler:~> pgbench.sh clients 12 tps = 120793.023637 clients 24 tps = 144668.961468 clients 36 tps = 156705.239251 clients 48 tps = 152004.886893 clients 60 tps = 138582.113864 clients 72 tps = 136286.891104 clients 84 tps = 137420.986043 clients 96 tps = 135199.060242
| |