[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50EF3FAF.7070803@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:24:47 -0800
From: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aquini@...hat.com, walken@...gle.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, lwoodman@...hat.com, jeremy@...p.org,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, knoel@...hat.com,
raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff
w/ auto tuning
On 1/8/2013 2:26 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
<...>
> Performance is within the margin of error of v2, so the graph
> has not been update.
>
> Please let me know if you manage to break this code in any way,
> so I can fix it...
>
Attached below is some preliminary data with one of the AIM7 micro-benchmark
workloads (i.e. high_systime). This is a kernel intensive workload which
does tons of forks/execs etc.and stresses quite a few of the same set
of spinlocks and semaphores.
Observed a drop in performance as we go to 40way and 80 way. Wondering
if the back off keeps increasing to such an extent that it actually starts
to hurt given the nature of this workload ? Also in the case of 80way
observed quite a bit of variation from run to run...
Also ran it inside a single KVM guest. There were some perf. dips but
interestingly didn't observe the same level of drop (compared to the
drop in the native case) as the guest size was scaled up to 40vcpu or
80vcpu.
FYI
Vinod
View attachment "aim7_rik" of type "text/plain" (2334 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists