Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758769AbZAMJh7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:37:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751995AbZAMJht (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:37:49 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:44799 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751312AbZAMJhs (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:37:48 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+UOSRenMiU+evb9UrroLale/mTyZa1y2AkX1kFjT BskNUZ3FCGvsyH Subject: Re: Performance regression of specjbb2005/aim7 with 2.6.29-rc1 From: Mike Galbraith To: "Zhang, Yanmin" Cc: LKML , ming.m.lin@intel.com, Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <1231837036.11429.27.camel@ymzhang> References: <1231837036.11429.27.camel@ymzhang> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:37:44 +0100 Message-Id: <1231839464.14655.12.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.54 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1768 Lines: 43 On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 16:57 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > Comparing with 2.6.28's results, specjbb2005 has about 7% regression with 2.6.29-rc1 > on my a couple of x86_64 machines. aim7 has about 1.7% regression. > > Ming did a quick bisect with aim7 and located below patch. > > commit 0a582440ff546e2c6610d1acec325e91b4efd313 > Author: Mike Galbraith > Date: Fri Jan 2 12:16:42 2009 +0100 > > sched: fix sched_slice() > > Impact: fix bad-interactivity buglet > > Fix sched_slice() to emit a sane result whether a task is currently > enqueued or not. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith > Tested-by: Jayson King > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar > > > After we revert the patch, aim7 regression disappeared. specjbb2005 regression becomes > less than 1.5% on 8-core stokley and disappears on 16-core tigerton. I don't know what > causes the last 1.5% regression. > > As tbench has about 5% improvement and oltp(mysql+sysbench) has 5% improvement, we also tested > to make sure such improvement isn't related to above patch. volanoMark's improvement is also not > related to the patch. So it seems safe to revert it. No, it's not safe to just revert. You can replace it with something else, but as long as sched_slice() is called for unqueued tasks, it must emit sane slices, otherwise you can experience a latency-hit-from-hell. See thread: problem with "sched: revert back to per-rq vruntime"? -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/