[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120927064142.GB5996@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:41:42 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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>,
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
* Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> > Just to confirm, if you turn off all preemption via a hack
> > (basically if you turn SCHED_OTHER into SCHED_BATCH), does
> > psql perform and scale much better, with the quality of
> > sibling selection and spreading of processes only being a
> > secondary effect?
>
> That has always been the case here. Preemption dominates.
Yes, so we get the best psql performance if we allow the central
proxy process to dominate a single CPU (IIRC it can easily go up
to 100% CPU utilization on that CPU - it is what determines max
psql throughput), and not let any worker run there much, right?
> Others should play with it too, and let their boxen speak.
Do you have an easy-to-apply hack patch by chance that has the
effect of turning off all such preemption, which people could
try?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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