[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348503163.11847.97.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:12:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nikolay Ulyanitsky <lystor@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, 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 Mon, 2012-09-24 at 08:52 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And the whole "if we find any non-idle cpu, skip the whole domain"
> logic really seems a bit odd (that's not new to your patch, though).
> Can somebody explain what the whole point of that idiotically written
> function is?
So we're looking for an idle cpu around @target. We prefer a cpu of an
idle core, since SMT-siblings share L[12] cache. The way we do this is
by iterating the topology tree downwards starting at the LLC (L3) cache
level. Its groups are either the SMT-siblings or singleton groups.
In case its the SMT things, we want to skip if there's a non-idle cpu in
that mask to avoid sharing L[12].
If we don't find an empty core, we go down the domain tree, either
finding a NULL domain and terminating, or finding the SMT domain, and
we'll see if there's an idle SMT sibling.
Is it pretty?, not really. Is there a better way of doing it?, possibly,
I just haven't thought of it yet :/
--
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