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]

Message-ID: <1348538258.7100.23.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:57:38 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.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>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
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 21:20 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: 
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:12:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Aside from the cache pollution I recall having been mentioned, on my
> > > E5620, cross core is a tbench win over affine, cross thread is not.
> > 
> > Oh, I agree with trying to avoid HT threads, the resource contention
> > easily gets too bad.
> > 
> > It's more a question of "if we have real cores with separate L1's but
> > shared L2's, go with those first, before we start distributing it out
> > to separate L2's".
> 
> Yes, this is exactly what I meant before. We basically want to avoid
> unnecessary, high-volume probe traffic over the L3 or memory controller,
> if possible.
> 
> So, trying harder to select an L2 sibling would be more beneficial,
> IMHO, instead of scanning the whole node.

If those L2 siblings are cores, oh yeah.  Do any modern packages have
multi-core shared L2?

-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/