On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 10:16 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote: > On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 10:03 +0800, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 17:31 -0800, Shi, Alex wrote: > > > This patch partly fixed a performance regression that triggered by > > > 4dcfe1025b513c2c, but issue still exists. > > > > So how much was the regression caused by the commit 4dcfe1025b513c2c and > > how much did we recover with this fix I posted. If we are talking about > > the regression caused by this single commit 4dcfe1025b513c2c, then I > > don't know of any other related fixes other than the recent fix we > > pushed upstream (ab2789213d224202237292d78aaa0c386c7b28b2). > > A little complex for the whole thing. > on 4 sockets EX machine, 3~5% hackbench thread regression due to 4dcfe > can be recovered by ab2789. > > But on 2 sockets SNB machine, 1024 clients loop netperf TCP-RR has about > 9% regression. and your patch seem recover 2~3%. Got the scheduler part from tip tree by command "git diff v3.2-rc6 kernel/sched*" and apply it again 3.2-rc6. Peter's commit "Only queue remote wakeups when crossing cache boundaries" was included. But testing show no change for TCP-RR result. > > And on a 2 sockets nhm, one of our private benchmark was impact much 20 > +% regression. that benchmark just run 4 process, each of process open a > thread, and the thread tasks is to locate randomly pages and than read > from 4 times/write 1 time data into a page. The ab2789 commit seems no > help our benchmark. > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|