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 05:57:15 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
	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, 2012-09-14 at 23:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: 
> On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 23:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 14:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > No, it does something *else* too. That whole "left-right" logic to
> > > (according to the commit message) "prevent bouncing" is entirely new,
> > > afaik.
> > > 
> > > So it is *not* just about avoiding to have to scan the whole package.
> > > It changes actual semantics too. No?
> > 
> > Both things change semantics, not looking at the entire package is new
> > too. But yeah I guess you could look at the exact cross-stitching as an
> > enhancement to the 'idle_buggy' thing.
> 
> What I'm saying is that having an idle_buggy means you have to assign
> one in the first place, his left-right stuff might not be the simplest
> means to do that -- in fact I suggested he do a simple shift first time
> I saw that patch.

Shift just means that upon perturbation, tasks shift their way around
the package vs random bounce around, that's why I cross wired.
> So if not the left-right thing, you still need to do _something_ to make
> the idle_buggy work at all. So its not entirely separate.

Yeah.

-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/