Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755176AbYJXXbq (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:31:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751575AbYJXXbf (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:31:35 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:59044 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751295AbYJXXbe (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:31:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20081024.163111.244324800.davem@davemloft.net> To: rjw@sisk.pl Cc: mingo@elte.hu, s0mbre@tservice.net.ru, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen. From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <200810250025.35734.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20081010115518.GA3159@tservice.net.ru> <20081010115725.GD19487@elte.hu> <200810250025.35734.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1752 Lines: 42 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:25:34 +0200 > On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:42:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > > > > vanilla 27: 347.222 > > > > > no TSO/GSO: 357.331 > > > > > no hrticks: 382.983 > > > > > no balance: 389.802 > > > > > > > > okay. The target is 470 MB/sec, right? (Assuming the workload is sane > > > > and 'fixing' it does not mean we have to schedule worse.) > > > > > > Well, that's where I started/stopped, so maybe we will even move > > > further? :) > > > > that's the right attitude ;) > > Can anyone please tell me if there was any conclusion of this thread? I made some more analysis in private with Ingo and Peter Z. and found that the tbench decreases correlate pretty much directly with the ongoing increasing cpu cost of wake_up() and friends in the fair scheduler. The largest increase in computational cost of wakeups came in 2.6.27 when the hrtimer bits got added, it more than tripled the cost of a wakeup. In 2.6.28-rc1 the hrtimer feature has been disabled, but I think that should be backports into the 2.6.27-stable branch. So I think that should be backported, and meanwhile I'm spending some time in the background trying to replace the fair schedulers RB tree crud with something faster so maybe at some point we can recover all of the regressions in this area caused by the CFS code. -- 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/