[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87hbvdiogq.fsf@depni.sinp.msu.ru>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:57:09 +0000
From: Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23
Hi. I've done measurments of time taken by make -j4 kernel build
on a quadcore box. Results are interesting: mainline kernel
has regressed since v2.6.23 release by more than 10%.
The following graph is time taken by "make -j4" (median over 9 runs)
versus kernel version. The huge (10%) regressions since v2.6.23 is
apparent. Note that tip/master c26f010 is better than current mainline.
Also note that BFS is significantly better than both and shows the same
throughput as vanilla v2.6.23:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7029/epicmakej4.png
The following plot is a detailed comparison of time taken versus number
of parallel jobs. Note that at "make -j4" (which equals number of hardware
threads), BFS has the minimum (best performance),
and tip/master -- maximum (worst). I've also tested mainline v2.6.31
(not shown on the graph) which produces similar, albeit a bit slower,
results as the tip/master.
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5335/epicbfstip.png
Conclusion are
1) mainline has severely regressed since v2.6.23
2) BFS shows optimal performance at make -jN where N equals number of
h/w threads, while current mainline scheduler performance is far from
optimal in this case.
--
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