[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131213133517.GA11176@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:35:17 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix ebizzy performance regression on IvyBridge
due to X86 TLB range flush
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > stddev appears to be rather large especially around a client count
> > of 7-8. It will be difficult to fine-tune the TLB range flush
> > constants if noise is too large.
>
> The number of iterations were very low to have high confidence of
> the figures. The high standard deviation for 5 clients was a single
> large outlier. It potentially could be stabilised to some extent by
> bumping up the number of iterations a lot and using percentiles
> instead of means.
Fair enough - and you were bisecting so length of runtime and
confidence of detection were obviously the primary concerns.
> I'm a bit wary of optimising the TLB flush ranges based on the
> benchmark even if we stabilised the figures. [...]
Absolutely - but they do appear to be pretty 'adversarial' to the TLB
optimization, with a measurable slowdown in a pretty complex,
real-life workload pattern.
So future tuning efforts will have to take such workloads into effect
as well, to make sure we don't regress again.
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