Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758874AbZADTxK (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:53:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758697AbZADTwz (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:52:55 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:53227 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755901AbZADTwy (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:52:54 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/N5e0PzvLN4QQ6A2IoddTUlHUQTG3oUjohBBUy2u nBnVZ2GPcHVecC Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n From: Mike Galbraith To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Ingo Molnar , Balbir Singh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20090104181946.GC4301@dirshya.in.ibm.com> References: <28c262360812291543ia322a13g6af854a685ce7632@mail.gmail.com> <20081230024819.GA23301@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20081230062139.GA30038@elte.hu> <20081230180722.GA29060@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20090102072600.GA13412@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20090102221630.GF17240@elte.hu> <1230967765.5257.6.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090103101626.GA4301@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <1230981761.27180.10.camel@marge.simson.net> <1231081200.17224.44.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090104181946.GC4301@dirshya.in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:52:49 +0100 Message-Id: <1231098769.5757.43.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.52 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1818 Lines: 52 On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:49 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > I am new to sysbench. I just started few OLTP runs with pgsql. In > your graph you are plotting and comparing read/write-per-sec and not > transactions-per-sec. Both the parameter vary in a similar manner. > Can you please let me know some background on using the > read/write-per-sec result for comparison. It means nothing. One result is the same as any other. I prefer low level read/write but someone else may prefer higher level transactions. > I assume you have run the above tests on Q6600 box that has single > quad core package that consist of two dual core CPUs. Yes. I can go down from there, but not up. Oh darn. > Can you please > let me know the sched_domain tree that was build by hacking > mc_capable(). The effect of sched_mc={1,2} depends on the > sched groups that was build and their flags. Hm. I don't know what you're asking. I hacked mc_capable only so I could have the tweakable handy in case there was something I didn't know about yet (having _just_ jumped in with both feet;) > As you have mentioned in your data, sched_mc=2 helps recover some > performance mainly because of NEWIDLE balance. Yes, odd. > You have mentioned clients in the x-axis of the graph, what is their > relation to the number of threads? I have 4 cores, and 2 caches. Any relationship is all about cache. Please feel free to point me to any previous discussion on sysbench > where the above questions have been discussed. I haven't seen such. > Thanks, > Vaidy Cheers, -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/