[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081022121007.GG8095@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:10:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] pending scheduler updates
* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 12:03 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > It has positive effects too, but IMHO, the bad outweigh the good.
>
> BTW, most dramatic on the other end of the spectrum is pgsql+oltp.
> With preemption as is, it collapses as load climbs to heavy with
> preemption knobs at stock. Postgres uses user-land spinlocks and
> _appears_ to wake others while these are still held. For this load,
> there is such a thing as too much short-term fairness, preempting lock
> holder creates nasty gaggle of contended lock spinners. It's curable
> with knobs, and I think it's postgres's own fault, but may be wrong.
>
> With that patch, pgsql+oltp scales perfectly.
hm, tempting.
Have you tried to hack/fix pgsql to do proper wakeups?
Right now pgsql it punishes schedulers that preempt it while it is
holding totally undeclared (to the kernel) user-space spinlocks ...
Hence postgresql is rewarding a _bad_ scheduler policy in essence. And
pgsql scalability seems to fall totally apart above 16 cpus - regardless
of scheduler policy.
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