Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763093AbYFGRxS (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:53:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761122AbYFGRxI (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:53:08 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:45645 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1761119AbYFGRxH (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jun 2008 13:53:07 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX193JIVXlGt3UGqCw1qS4wfp8XNyMy6mghk07+4Jja NnJGxuVq5DbqJh Subject: Re: [patch part 2] Re: [patch] Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+ From: Mike Galbraith To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Greg Smith , Ingo Molnar , Dhaval Giani , lkml , Srivatsa Vaddagiri In-Reply-To: <1212855120.19205.91.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1211440207.5733.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <20080522082814.GA4499@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1211447105.4823.7.camel@marge.simson.net> <1211452465.7606.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <1211455553.4381.9.camel@marge.simson.net> <1211456659.29104.20.camel@twins> <1211458176.5693.6.camel@marge.simson.net> <1211459081.29104.40.camel@twins> <1211536814.5851.18.camel@marge.simson.net> <20080523101000.GA13964@elte.hu> <1211537717.5851.22.camel@marge.simson.net> <1211586407.4786.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <1211867950.5505.47.camel@marge.simson.net> <1212732780.13981.43.camel@marge.simson.net> <1212838682.5571.6.camel@marge.simson.net> <1212844084.19205.85.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1212850447.4668.10.camel@marge.simson.net> <1212855120.19205.91.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:53:03 +0200 Message-Id: <1212861183.4953.5.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1064 Lines: 27 On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 18:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 16:54 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 15:08 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 13:38 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > Interesting.. Looks good. > > > > In that case it _might_ fly, so needs changelog and blame line. > > Just wondering, how much effect does the last_preempter stuff have?, it > seems to me the minimum runtime check ought to throttle these wakeups > quite a bit as well. Without last_preempter, you'd have all tasks having a minimum runtime. That would harm the single cpu starve.c testcase for sure, and anything like it. I wanted to target this pretty accurately to 1:N type loads. If you mean no trying to disperse preempters, I can test without it. -Mike -- 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/