Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932874AbWL0AvY (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:51:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932872AbWL0AvX (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:51:23 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:30889 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932874AbWL0AvX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:51:23 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.12,211,1165219200"; d="scan'208"; a="181968830:sNHT20912220" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Subject: RE: 2.6.19-rt14 slowdown compared to 2.6.19 Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:51:21 -0800 Message-ID: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C019998CA@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: 2.6.19-rt14 slowdown compared to 2.6.19 Thread-Index: AccmgcK5XbX9CwpDTLOSu6UfsDiNjgCwbNUg From: "Chen, Tim C" To: "Ingo Molnar" Cc: , "Siddha, Suresh B" , "Peter Zijlstra" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2006 00:51:22.0863 (UTC) FILETIME=[2126CFF0:01C72951] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2188 Lines: 60 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > cool - thanks for the feedback! Running the 64-bit kernel, right? > Yes, 64-bit kernel was used. > > while some slowdown is to be expected, did in each case idle time > increase significantly? Volanomark and Re-Aim7 ran close to 0% idle time for 2.6.19 kernel. Idle time increase significantly for Volanomark (to 60% idle) and Re-Aim7 (to 20% idle) with the rt kernel. For netperf, the system was 60% idle for both 2.6.19 and rt kernel and changes in idle time was not significant. > If yes then this is the effect of lock > contention. Lock contention effects are 'magnified' by PREEMPT_RT. For > example if you run 128 threads workload that all use the same lock > then > the -rt kernel can act as if it were a 128-way box (!). This way by > running -rt you'll see scalability problems alot sooner than on real > hardware. In other words: PREEMPT_RT in essence simulates the > scalability behavior of up to an infinite amount of CPUs. (with the > exception of cachemiss emulation ;) [the effect is not this precise, > but > that's the rough trend] Turning off PREEMPT_RT for 2.6.20-rc2-rt0 kernel restored most the performance of Volanaomark and Re-Aim7. Idle time is close to 0%. So the benchmarks with large number of threads are affected more by PREEMPT_RT. For netperf TCP streaming, the performance improved from 40% down to 20% down from 2.6.20-rc2 kernel. There is only a server and a client process for netperf. The underlying reason for the change in performance is probably different. > > If you'd like to profile this yourself then the lowest-cost way of > profiling lock contention on -rt is to use the yum kernel and run the > attached trace-it-lock-prof.c code on the box while your workload is > in 'steady state' (and is showing those extended idle times): > > ./trace-it-lock-prof > trace.txt > Thanks for the pointer. Will let you know of any relevant traces. Thanks. Tim - 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/