Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754549Ab0DZHWP (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:22:15 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:53742 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753717Ab0DZHWH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:22:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=Ti7fSJ3SiuJRFDn1ISJP8LYMx+OJJ7YxjS+CjecLwx8OJo0YgKN0hwzo0C9IbjfoiN D89q32qONX8bO00cynbKqLcgj1iM1LsXOPEyNAT3gYflpPUiXEahgBQ5AV5i3bILlVMP fPmb49vp+jAAZjcB7qef8Jprh1doomkwVfwgA= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1272265147.2078.648.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> References: <4BD086D0.9090309@cs.helsinki.fi> <1272265147.2078.648.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:22:05 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 67e1f5b8c6359fa0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Bug #15713] hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e From: Pekka Enberg To: "Zhang, Yanmin" Cc: Christoph Lameter , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Maciej Rutecki , Alex Shi , tj@kernel.org, tim.c.chen@intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1705 Lines: 41 Hi Yanmin, On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: >> I haven't been able to reproduce this either on my Core 2 machine. > Mostly, the regression exists on Nehalem machines. I suspect it's related to > hyper-threading machine. OK, so does anyone know why hyper-threading would change things for the per-CPU allocator? >> Yanmin, does something like this help on your machines? > A quick testing doesn't show any help. So it's unlikely to be false sharing, I suppose. > I did a new testing. After the machine boots, I hot remove 8 hyper-threading cpu > which means last 8 are just cores. The regression between 2.6.33 and 2.6.34-rc becomes > small. > > My opinion is we needn't revert the patch, but still keep an eye on it when testing other > new RC kernel releases. One reason is volanoMark and netperf have no such regression. > Is it ok? We need to get this fixed. In my experience, it's pretty common that slab regressions pop up only in one or few benchmarks. The problem is likely to pop up in some real-world workload where it's even more difficult to track down because basic CPU profiles don't pin-point the problem. Do we have some Intel CPU expert hanging around here that could enlighten me of the effects of hyper-threading on CPU caching? I also wonder why it's showing up with the new per-CPU allocator and not with the homebrewn one we had in SLUB previously. Pekka -- 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/