Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753919AbXLEPkr (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:40:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751974AbXLEPkk (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:40:40 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:35879 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbXLEPkj (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:40:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:40:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jie Chen Cc: Simon Holm Th??gersen , Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4 Message-ID: <20071205154014.GA6491@elte.hu> References: <4744966C.900@jlab.org> <4744ADA9.7040905@cosmosbay.com> <4744E0DC.7050808@jlab.org> <1195698770.11808.4.camel@odie.local> <4744F042.4070002@jlab.org> <20071204131707.GA4232@elte.hu> <4756C3D9.9030107@jlab.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4756C3D9.9030107@jlab.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1337 Lines: 30 * Jie Chen wrote: > I just ran the same test on two 2.6.24-rc4 kernels: one with > CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED on and the other with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED > off. The odd behavior I described in my previous e-mails were still > there for both kernels. Let me know If I can be any more help. Thank > you. ok, i had a look at your data, and i think this is the result of the scheduler balancing out to idle CPUs more agressively than before. Doing that is almost always a good idea though - but indeed it can result in "bad" numbers if all you do is to measure the ping-pong "performance" between two threads. (with no real work done by any of them). the moment you saturate the system a bit more, the numbers should improve even with such a ping-pong test. do you have testcode (or a modification of your testcase sourcecode) that simulates a real-life situation where 2.6.24-rc4 performs not as well as you'd like it to see? (or if qmt.tar.gz already contains that then please point me towards that portion of the test and how i should run it - thanks!) Ingo -- 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/