[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100323182735.GA10897@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:27:35 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, ant.starikov@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 15618] New: 2.6.18->2.6.32->2.6.33 huge
regression in performance
* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:34:09 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> >
> > It shows a very brutal amount of page fault invoked mmap_sem spinning
> > overhead.
> >
>
> Yes. Note that we fall off a cliff at nine threads on a 16-way. As soon as
> a core gets two threads scheduled onto it?
it's AMD Opterons so no SMT.
My (wild) guess would be that 8 cpus can still do cacheline ping-pong
reasonably efficiently, but it starts breaking down very seriously with 9 or
more cores bouncing the same single cache-line.
Breakdowns in scalability are usually very non-linear, for hardware and
software reasons. '8 threads' sounds like a hw limit to me. From the scheduler
POV there's no big difference between 8 or 9 CPUs used [this is non-HT] - with
8 or 7 cores still idle.
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