Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755706AbXJ2Ji0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:38:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752156AbXJ2JiT (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:38:19 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:4893 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752137AbXJ2JiS (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:38:18 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,341,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="362295258" Subject: Re: aim7 -30% regression in 2.6.24-rc1 From: "Zhang, Yanmin" To: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <1193624538.3019.189.camel@ymzhang> References: <1193391787.3019.174.camel@ymzhang> <20071026112307.GA30406@elte.hu> <1193624538.3019.189.camel@ymzhang> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:37:06 +0800 Message-Id: <1193650626.3019.198.camel@ymzhang> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.9.2 (2.9.2-2.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2284 Lines: 55 On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 10:22 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 13:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > > > I tested 2.6.24-rc1 on my x86_64 machine which has 2 quad-core processors. > > > > > > Comparing with 2.6.23, aim7 has about -30% regression. I did a bisect > > > and found patch > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5869ce7f68b233ceb81465a7644be0d9a5f3dbb > > > caused the issue. > > > > weird, that's a commit diff - i.e. it changes no code. > I got the tag from #git log. As for above link, I just added prior http address, > so readers could check the patch by clicking. > > > > > > kbuild/SPECjbb2000/SPECjbb2005 also has big regressions. On my another > > > tigerton machine (4 quad-core processors), SPECjbb2005 has more than > > > -40% regression. I didn't do a bisect on such benchmark testing, but I > > > suspect the root cause is like aim7's. > > > > these two commits might be relevant: > > > > 7a6c6bcee029a978f866511d6e41dbc7301fde4c > I did a quick testing. This patch has no impact. > > > 95dbb421d12fdd9796ed153853daf3679809274f > Above big patch doesn't include this one, which means if I do > 'git checkout b5869ce7f68b233ceb81465a7644be0d9a5f3dbb', the kernel doesn't include > 95dbb421d12fdd9796ed153853daf3679809274f. > > > > > but a bisection result would be the best info. > I will do a bisect between 2.6.23 and tag 9c63d9c021f375a2708ad79043d6f4dd1291a085. I ran git bisect with kernel version as the tag. It looks like git will be crazy sometimes. So I checked ChangeLog and used the number tag to replace the kernel version and retested it. It looks like at least 2 patches were responsible for the regression. I'm doing sub-bisect now. I could find aim7 regression on all my testing machines although the regression percentage is different. Machine regression 8-core stoakley 30% 16-core tigerton 6% tulsa(dual-core+HT, 16 logical cpu) 20% -yanmin - 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/