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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1347684137.4340.166.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:42:17 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
	Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@...il.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 21:15 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We don't do random crazy "use another scheduler" to hide problems with
> the default one.

I was proposing a diagnostic.
> 
> And since you are the author of the regressing patch, and don't seem
> to treat the regression as something serious, I really see no
> alternative to just reverting it.

Wow, I don't know how you obtained that impression, but fine, nuke it.

>       Linus
> 
> On Sep 14, 2012 9:11 PM, "Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de> wrote:
>         On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 23:27 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>         > (Adding everybody to CC and leaving the below for
>         reference.)
>         >
>         > Guys,
>         >
>         > as Nikolay says below, we have a regression in 3.6 with
>         pgbench's
>         > benchmark in postgresql.
>         >
>         > I was able to reproduce it on another box here and did a
>         bisection run.
>         > It pointed to the commit below.
>         >
>         > And yes, reverting that commit fixes the issue here.
>         
>         My wild (and only) theory is that this is userspace spinlock
>         related.
>         If so, starting the server and benchmark SCHED_BATCH should
>         not only
>         kill the regression, but likely improve throughput as well.
>         
>         -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/