Subject: Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived
	threads
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <20080209000456.GA21021@lixom.net>
References: <20080209000456.GA21021@lixom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:58:39 +0100
Message-Id: <1202543920.9578.3.camel@homer.simson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1288
Lines: 58


On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 18:04 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I ended up with a customer benchmark in my lap this week that doesn't
> do well on recent kernels. :(
> 
> After cutting it down to a simple testcase/microbenchmark, it seems like
> recent kernels don't do as well with short-lived threads competing
> with the thread it's cloned off of. The CFS scheduler changes come to
> mind, but I suppose it could be caused by something else as well.
> 
> The pared-down testcase is included below. Reported runtime for the
> testcase has increased almost 3x between 2.6.22 and 2.6.24:
> 
> 2.6.22: 3332 ms
> 2.6.23: 4397 ms
> 2.6.24: 8953 ms
> 2.6.24-git19: 8986 ms

My 3GHz P4 shows disjointed results.

2.6.22.17-smp
time 798 ms
time 780 ms
time 702 ms

2.6.22.17-cfs-v24.1-smp
time 562 ms
time 551 ms
time 551 ms

2.6.23.15-smp
time 254 ms
time 254 ms
time 293 ms

2.6.23.15-cfs-v24-smp
time 764 ms
time 791 ms
time 780 ms

2.6.24.1-smp
time 815 ms
time 820 ms
time 771 ms

2.6.25-smp (git today)
time 29 ms
time 61 ms
time 72 ms


--
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/