Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:19:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [Bug #10638] sysbench+mysql(oltp, readonly) 30% regression
	with 2.6.26-rc1
Message-ID: <20080604111951.GA5507@elte.hu>
References: <oKKSi1w1qaF.A.mEG.JrBMIB@albercik> <7wuznNhcUqC.A.IMB.TtBMIB@albercik> <1211131278.6463.7.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1211135856.6463.22.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1211160283.3177.134.camel@ymzhang> <1211176540.8292.3.camel@twins> <1211179767.3177.166.camel@ymzhang> <20080530094541.GA32508@elte.hu> <1212382657.3177.319.camel@ymzhang>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1212382657.3177.319.camel@ymzhang>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1804
Lines: 49


* Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 11:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yanmin,
> > 
> > could you please check whether the performance regressions you 
> > noticed are now fixed in upstream -git? [make sure merge 
> > a7f75d3bed28 is included]
> > 
> > i believe most of the regressions to 2.6.25 you found should be 
> > addressed - if not, please let me know which one is still hurting.
>
> Most regressions are fixed.

great - thanks for the exhaustive testing! In fact there should be nice 
speedups in most of the categories as well ;-)

out of the 5 issues, only one is inconclusive:

> On 16-thread tulsa machine, hackbench result becomes 34 seconds. 
> 2.6.26-rc2's result is 40 seconds and 2.6.26-rc1's is 30 seconds. So 
> there is much improvement. On another Montvale machine(supporting 
> multi-threading, but I don't turn on it in BIOS), hackbench has the 
> similiar behavior.

okay, that's "hackbench 100", which creates a swarm of 2000 runnable 
tasks and which is extremely sensitive to wakeup preemption details. It 
is a volanomark work-alike, so if volanomark itself works fine (which it 
does appear, from your other numbers) and this one regresses a bit, i'm 
not sure there's anything fundamental to be worried about.

Quite likely you'll get more stable results if you run it all batched 
(which such workload really should):

 schedtool -B -e hackbench 100

right?

the 16-thread tulsa machine, how is it laid out physically: 2 sockets, 4 
cores per socket, 2 threads per core?

	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/