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: <20120927071011.GA8980@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:10:11 +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:

> > 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?
> 
> They don't need any hacks, all they have to do is start 
> postgreqsl SCHED_BATCH, then run pgbench the same way.
> 
> I use schedctl, but in chrt speak, chrt -b 0 
> /etc/init.d/postgresql start, and then the same for pgbench 
> itself.

Just in case someone prefers patches to user-space approaches (I 
certainly do!), here's one that turns off wakeup driven 
preemption by default.

It can be turned back on via:

  echo WAKEUP_PREEMPTION > /debug/sched_features

and off again via:

  echo NO_WAKEUP_PREEMPTION > /debug/sched_features 

(the patch is completely untested and such.)

The theory would be that this patch fixes psql performance, with 
CPU selection being a measurable but second order of magnitude 
effect. How well does practice match theory in this case?

Thanks,

	Ingo

---------
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6b800a1..f936552 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2907,7 +2907,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_
 	 * Batch and idle tasks do not preempt non-idle tasks (their preemption
 	 * is driven by the tick):
 	 */
-	if (unlikely(p->policy != SCHED_NORMAL))
+	if (unlikely(p->policy != SCHED_NORMAL) || !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPTION))
 		return;
 
 	find_matching_se(&se, &pse);
diff --git a/kernel/sched/features.h b/kernel/sched/features.h
index eebefca..e68e69a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/features.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/features.h
@@ -32,6 +32,11 @@ SCHED_FEAT(LAST_BUDDY, true)
 SCHED_FEAT(CACHE_HOT_BUDDY, true)
 
 /*
+ * Allow wakeup-time preemption of the current task:
+ */
+SCHED_FEAT(WAKEUP_PREEMPTION, false)
+
+/*
  * Use arch dependent cpu power functions
  */
 SCHED_FEAT(ARCH_POWER, true)
--
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/