[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120915194453.GA30632@liondog.tnic>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:44:54 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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 Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Just for my n00b scheduler understanding: this way you're practically
> > extending the timeslice of the task so that it gets done without being
> > preempted and the lock-holding period of the preempted task gets smaller
> > and thus you get more completed transactions in postgres during the
> > benchmark run?
>
> Not really, preemption will happen, but when the preempting task goes to
> sleep (or uses it's fair share), instead of selecting the leftmost task
> (lowest vruntime), the preempted task gets the CPU back if we can do
> that without violating fairness. If the preempted task happens to be a
> userland spinlock holder, it then release the lock sooner, others don't
> spin as long, do more work, less playing space heater while lock holder
> waits for spinners to eat enough CPU to become less deserving that it.
Ok, I definitely grok this. Thanks for explaining.
--
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