linux-kernel - Re: tbench regression with 2.6.32-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1255083400.8802.15.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:16:40 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tbench regression with 2.6.32-rc1

On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 17:51 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> Comparing with 2.6.31's results, tebench has some regression with
> 2.6.32-rc1.
> COmmandline to start tbench:
> #./tbench_srv &
> #./tbench -t 600 CPU_NUM*2 127.0.0.1  #Use real cpu num to replace CPU_NUM
> So start 2 client processes per cpu.
> 
> 1) On 4*4 core tigerton: 30%;
> 2) On 2*4 core stoakley: 15%;
> 3) On 2*8 core Nehalem: 6%.
> 
> As there are couple of patches which try to turn on/off some sched domain
> flags such like SD_BALANCE_WAKE, I used some walkaround to bisect it.
> On tigerton, below patch is captured. 
> commit 59abf02644c45f1591e1374ee7bb45dc757fcb88
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Date:   Wed Sep 16 08:28:30 2009 +0200
> 
>     sched: Add SD_PREFER_LOCAL
> 
> 
> The patch reverting is not clean, so I did some testing by turning on/off
> some domain flags and sched_feaures manually.
> 
> 1) On tigerton: if SD_PREFER_LOCAL=0 (disable it), the regression becomes about 2%.
> 2) On stoakley: if SD_PREFER_LOCAL=0 (disable it), the regression becomes about 4%.
> 3) On Nehalem: Above method couldn't improve result. I'm still checking it.
> 
> I also tried to turn on/off FAIR_SLEEPERS and GENTLE_FAIR_SLEEPERS. It seems they
> has limited impact on tbench. I need double check these 2 flags.

So the c2q cpus, and esp the one with smaller cache hurt from this. I
guess we can turn this off without too much down sides. Maybe turn it on
for NUMA on the nehalem?


---
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
index 25a9284..d823c24 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ extern unsigned long node_remap_size[];
 				| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK			\
 				| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE			\
 				| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE			\
+				| 1*SD_PREFER_LOCAL			\
 				| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER			\
 				| 0*SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE		\
 				| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES		\
diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
index fc0bf3e..57e6357 100644
--- a/include/linux/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/topology.h
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
 				| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK			\
 				| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE			\
 				| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE			\
-				| 1*SD_PREFER_LOCAL			\
+				| 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL			\
 				| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER			\
 				| 1*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES		\
 				| 0*SD_SERIALIZE			\
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
 				| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK			\
 				| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE			\
 				| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE			\
-				| 1*SD_PREFER_LOCAL			\
+				| 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL			\
 				| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER			\
 				| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES		\
 				| 0*SD_SERIALIZE			\


--
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/