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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 06:35:00 +0200 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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 22:32 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > 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? > > You provide a shared page for a process group so it can write hints to > which is kernel mapped so the scheduler can peek.. Or perhaps a flag ala SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK to provide a not necessarily followed hint. That hint could be to simply always try the LAST_BUDDY thing with flagged tasks, since we know that works (postgress inspired LAST_BUDDY). Even with postgress like things, fast mover kthreads etc punching through isn't necessarily a bad thing, you just need to avoid the punch leaving a gigantic hole. Oh, while I'm thinking about it, there's another scenario that could cause the select_idle_sibling() change to affect pgbench on largeish packages, but it boils down to preemption odds as well. IIRC pgbench _was_ at least 1:N, ie one process driving the whole load. Waker of many (singularly bad idea as a way to generate load) being preempted by it's wakees stalls the whole load, so expensive spreading of wakees to the four winds ala WAKE_BALANCE becomes attractive, that pain being markedly less intense than having multiple cores go idle while creator or work waits for one. -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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists