[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334940042.3796.48.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:40:42 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: load balancing regression since commit 367456c7
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 16:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Ok, so I can't reproduce this on my WSM-EP.. even !PREEMPT kernels are
> consistent with hackbench times with or without that patch.
>
> Can you still send your full .config? Also, do you have cpu-cgroup muck
> enabled and are you using that systemd shite?
>
> What does the below patch (on top of the previous) do?
>
There is a slight 10% to 15% improvement with the patch. However,
the change in performance difficult to quantify precisely as the
hackbench runtime has large variations (up to 50%) on our Sandy Bridge EP
server machines since commit 367456c7.
We also do not see regression for hackbench on WSM-EP, but only
on machines with Sandy-Bridge EP (2 socket, 8 cores/socket, HT enabled).
We are not running hackbench in cgroup for this test.
The Sandy Bridge EP machines installed has FC16, so I think it uses
systemd. The machine on our WSM EP has FC15, which also has systemd.
I'm sending you the .config in a separate mail. Thanks for taking a look.
The .config aligns closely with standard Fedora settings.
Tim
--
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