[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1220896833.18239.141.camel@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:00:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Ma, Chinang" <chinang.ma@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
"Tripathi, Sharad C" <sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com>,
"Chilukuri, Harita" <harita.chilukuri@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc5 OLTP performance regression
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 10:58 -0700, Ma, Chinang wrote:
> We found the group scheduler in 2.6.27-rc5 has negative performance
> impact on TPC Online Transaction Processing workload. The test was
> conducted on a dual-socket quad-core Xeon server. OLTP workload is
> disk i/o intensive and we have over 200 database shadow processes
> running in the server during this test. Enabling group scheduler
> (CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED=y) reduced performance by 2.0%. Oprofile data
> indicates significant amount of cycles are spent in tg_shares_up().
> This is new regression as we did not find the same issue with 2.6.26
> kernel group scheduler. Is anybody looking into group scheduler
> performance and any idea for reducing the performance impact?
Because the .26 group scheduler wasn't SMP aware. The extra cost comes
from the fact that .27 is.
--
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