linux-kernel - Re: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to 3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets

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]

Date:	Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:36:41 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	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 Sat, 2012-09-15 at 09:16 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: 
> Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> writes:
> >
> > The only reason I can think of why pgbench might suffer is postgres's
> > userspace spinlocks.  If you always look for an idle core, you improve
> > the odds that the wakeup won't preempt a lock holder, sending others
> > into a long spin.
> 
> User space spinlocks like this unfortunately have a tendency to break
> with all kinds of scheduler changes. We've seen this frequently too
> with other users. The best bet currently is to use the real time
> scheduler, but with various tweaks to get its overhead down.

Yeah, that's one way, but decidedly sub-optimal.

> Ultimatively the problem is that user space spinlocks with CPU
> oversubcription is a very unstable setup and small changes can
> easily disturb it.
> 
> Just using futex is unfortunately not the answer either.

Yes, postgress performs loads better with it's spinlocks, but due to
that, it necessarily _hates_ preemption.  How the is the scheduler
supposed to know that any specific userland task _really_ shouldn't be
preempted at any specific time, else bad things follow?

-Mike

--
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/