[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081022124240.GD25536@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:42:40 +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:
> > > With that patch, pgsql+oltp scales perfectly.
> >
> > hm, tempting.
>
> I disagree. Postgres's scaling problem is trivially corrected by
> twiddling knobs (or whatnot). [...]
okay, then we need to document it a bit more: what knobs need twiddling
to make it scale perfectly?
> [...] With that patch, you can't twiddle mysql throughput back, or
> disk intensive loads for that matter. You can tweak the preempt
> number, but it has nothing to do with lag, so anybody can preempt
> anybody else as you turn the knob toward zero. Chaos.
okay, convinced.
> > Have you tried to hack/fix pgsql to do proper wakeups?
>
> No, I tried to build without spinlocks to verify, but build croaked.
> Never went back to slogging through the code.
if it falls back to IPC semaphores that's a bad trade from a performance
POV. The best would be if it used proper futexes (i.e. pthread_mutex()
and friends) not some home-grown user-space spinlock thing.
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