[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348734104.3292.5.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:21:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
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 Wed, 2012-09-26 at 11:19 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> For example, it starts with the maximum target scheduling domain, and
> works its way in over the scheduling groups within that domain. What
> the f*ck is the logic of that kind of crazy thing? It never makes
> sense to look at a biggest domain first.
That's about SMT, it was felt that you don't want SMT siblings first
because typically SMT siblings are somewhat under-powered compared to
actual cores.
Also, the whole scheduler topology thing doesn't have L2/L3 domains, it
only has the LLC domain, if you want more we'll need to fix that. For
now its a fixed:
SMT
MC (llc)
CPU (package/machine-for-!numa)
NUMA
So in your patch, your for_each_domain() loop will really only do the
SMT/MC levels and prefer an SMT sibling over an idle core.
--
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