[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwb1ddBr6gEsJ7jBjGeBC5Son5p3s9nsx_Hyst9E-Hhpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:32:43 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
>
> Yes. Cross wiring traverse _start_ points should eliminate (well, damp)
> bounce as well without killing the 1:N latency/preempt benefits of large
> L3 packages.
Yes, a "test buddy first, then check the other cores in the package"
hybrid approach might be reasonable.
Of course, that's effectively what the whole "prev_cpu" thing is kind
of supposed to also do, isn't it? Because it's even lovelier if you
can avoid bouncing around by trying to hit a previous CPU that might
just have some of the old data in the caches still.
Linus
--
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