[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1202759926.4165.31.camel@homer.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:58:46 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived
threads
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:26 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:15:55AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Piddling around with your testcase, it still looks to me like things
> > improved considerably in latest greatest git. Hopefully that means
> > happiness is in the pipe for the real workload... synthetic load is
> > definitely happier here as burst is shortened.
>
> The real workload doesn't see much of an improvement. The changes I did
> when tinkering yesterday seem like they're better at modelling just
> what's going on with that one.
So the real application is trying to yield? If so, you could try
prodding /proc/sys/kernel/sched_compat_yield.
It shouldn't matter if you yield or not really, that should reduce the
number of non-work spin cycles wasted awaiting preemption as threads
execute in series (the problem), and should improve your performance
numbers, but not beyond single threaded.
If I plugged a yield into the busy wait, I would expect to see a large
behavioral difference due to yield implementation changes, but that
would only be a symptom in this case, no? Yield should be a noop.
-Mike
--
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