linux-kernel - Re: [revert] mysql+oltp regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080811133126.GC14474@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:31:26 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [revert] mysql+oltp regression


* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com> wrote:

> Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>>>> Speaking of this: Another patch I submitted to you Ingo (had to 
>>>>>> do with updating the load_weight inside task_setprio) seems to 
>>>>>> also have this phenomenon: e.g. its technically correct but 
>>>>>> further testing has revealed negative repercussions elsewhere.  
>>>>>> So please ignore that patch (or revert if you already pulled 
>>>>>> in, but I don't think you have).  Ill try to look into this 
>>>>>> issue as well.
>>>>>>         
>>>>> ok, under which thread/subject is that? Not queued in tip/sched/* 
>>>>> yet, correct?
>>>>>         
>>>> Here is the original thread:
>>>>
>>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/416
>>>>
>>>> I do not believe you have queued it anywhere (public anyway) yet.
>>>>
>>>> Note I have already invalidated 1/2, and now I am retracting 2/2 as 
>>>> well.  (1/2 is actually a bogus patch, 2/2 is "technically correct" 
>>>> but causes ripples in the load balancer that need to be sorted out  
>>>> first.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> ok, thanks. I'm curious, what are those ripple effects? Stability or  
>>> performance?
>>>   
>>
>> Performance.  I found it while working on my pi series (which fyi I  
>> should have a v2 refresh for soon, probably today...i am hoping to get  
>> some review feedback from you on that as well, time permitting of  
>> course ;).
>>
>> Basically the behavior I was observing was that kernel builds via  
>> distcc would cluster all the cc1 jobs on a single core.  At first I  
>> thought my pi-series was screwed up, but then I realized I had applied  
>> the patch referenced above earlier in my development tree, and  
>> removing it allowed pi to work fine.
>>
>> I found the problem with in once boot cycle with ftrace (thanks Steve!).
>
> Hmm..Im not sure what went wrong between brain and hand above, but of 
> course I meant to say ".. within one boot cycle ..", not "with in 
> once".  Heh.

my second reading of that sentence auto-corrected it to your intented 
version ;-)

	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/