[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171218470.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:30:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: mingo@...e.hu, dada1@...mosbay.com, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, efault@....de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22
-> 2.6.28
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, David Miller wrote:
>
> It's on my workstation which is a much simpler 2 processor
> UltraSPARC-IIIi (1.5Ghz) system.
Ok. It could easily be something like a cache footprint issue. And while I
don't know my sparc cpu's very well, I think the Ultrasparc-IIIi is super-
scalar but does no out-of-order and speculation, no? So I could easily see
that the indirect branches in the scheduler hurt much more, and might
explain why the x86 profile looks so different.
One thing that non-NMI profiles also tend to show is "clumping", which in
turn tends to rather excessively pinpoint code sequences that release the
irq flag - just because those points show up in profiles, rather than
being a spread-out-mush. So it's possible that Ingo's profile did show the
scheduler more, but it was in the form of much more spread out "noise"
rather than the single spike you saw.
Linus
--
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