[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1240938947.3380.50.camel@mulgrave.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:15:47 +0000
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-driver@...gic.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 12:57 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:02:40 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > "Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@...el.com> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > ======oprofile 0.9.3 CPU_CLK_UNHALTED for top 30 functions
> > > Cycles% 2.6.24.2 Cycles% 2.6.30-rc2
> > > 74.8578 <database> 67.6966 <database>
> >
> > The dip in database cycles is indeed worrying.
> >
> > > 1.0500 qla24xx_start_scsi 1.1724 qla24xx_start_scsi
> > > 0.8089 schedule 1.0578 qla24xx_intr_handler
> > > 0.5864 kmem_cache_alloc 0.8259 __schedule
> > > 0.4989 __blockdev_direct_IO 0.7451 kmem_cache_alloc
> > > 0.4357 __sigsetjmp 0.4872 __blockdev_direct_IO
> > > 0.4152 copy_user_generic_string 0.4390 task_rq_lock
> > > 0.3953 qla24xx_intr_handler 0.4338 __sigsetjmp
> >
> > And also why the qla24xx_intr_handler became ~2.5x as expensive.
> > Cc linux-scsi and qla24xx maintainers.
> >
>
> They are getting 31000 interrupts/sec vs. 22000/sec on older kernels.
Should be fixed by:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=124093712114937
If someone could verify, I'd be grateful.
Thanks,
James
--
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