[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F67796.4040508@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:06:14 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
CC: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Allegrucci <l_allegrucci@...oo.it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: SMP performance degradation with sysbench
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:11:02PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>Hi Anton,
>>
>>Very cool. Yeah I had come to the conclusion that it wasn't a kernel
>>issue, and basically was afraid to look into userspace ;)
>
>
> btw, regardless of what glibc is doing, still the cpu shouldn't go
> idle IMHO. Even if we're overscheduling and trashing over the mmap_sem
> with threads (no idea if other OS schedules the task away when they
> find the other cpu in the mmap critical section), or if we've
> overscheduling with futex locking, the cpu usage should remain 100%
> system time in the worst case. The only explanation for going idle
> legitimately could be on HT cpus where HT may hurt more than help but
> on real multicore it shouldn't happen.
>
Well ignoring the HT issue, I was seeing lots of idle time simply
because userspace could not keep up enough load to the scheduler.
There simply were fewer runnable tasks than CPU cores.
But it wasn't a case of all CPUs going idle, just most of them ;)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists