[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120914214532.GA6468@liondog.tnic>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:45:32 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to
3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets - bisected
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:40:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hmm, cute. What kind of machine did you test it on? Nikolay's machines
> look to be smallish AMD X6 or ancient Intel c2d (the patch will indeed
> have absolutely no effect on a dual core).
Yep, I took an X6 too. So it's a single-socket, 6-core AMD, F10h.
> I'll see about running pgbench on a bigger Intel tomorrow if Mike
> doesn't beat me to it.
Can try that too on one of the bigger machines I have, if needed.
> The problem the patch is trying to address is not having to scan an
> entire package for idle cores on every wakeup now that packages are
> getting stupid big.
>
> Regressing Postgres otoh isn't nice either..
>
> Anyway, I guess I'm fine with nixing this patch until we figure out
> something smarter..
>
> I'm also curious to know wth postgres does that this patch makes such a
> big difference...
I'm using 9.1 in Debian testing while Nikolay is using 9.2.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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