[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071205154014.GA6491@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:40:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jie Chen <chen@...b.org>
Cc: Simon Holm Th??gersen <odie@...aau.dk>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
* Jie Chen <chen@...b.org> wrote:
> I just ran the same test on two 2.6.24-rc4 kernels: one with
> CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED on and the other with CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> off. The odd behavior I described in my previous e-mails were still
> there for both kernels. Let me know If I can be any more help. Thank
> you.
ok, i had a look at your data, and i think this is the result of the
scheduler balancing out to idle CPUs more agressively than before. Doing
that is almost always a good idea though - but indeed it can result in
"bad" numbers if all you do is to measure the ping-pong "performance"
between two threads. (with no real work done by any of them).
the moment you saturate the system a bit more, the numbers should
improve even with such a ping-pong test.
do you have testcode (or a modification of your testcase sourcecode)
that simulates a real-life situation where 2.6.24-rc4 performs not as
well as you'd like it to see? (or if qmt.tar.gz already contains that
then please point me towards that portion of the test and how i should
run it - thanks!)
Ingo
--
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