From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Scheduler(?) regression from 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 for short-lived threads
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:58:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1202543920.9578.3.camel@homer.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080209000456.GA21021@lixom.net>
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 18:04 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ended up with a customer benchmark in my lap this week that doesn't
> do well on recent kernels. :(
>
> After cutting it down to a simple testcase/microbenchmark, it seems like
> recent kernels don't do as well with short-lived threads competing
> with the thread it's cloned off of. The CFS scheduler changes come to
> mind, but I suppose it could be caused by something else as well.
>
> The pared-down testcase is included below. Reported runtime for the
> testcase has increased almost 3x between 2.6.22 and 2.6.24:
>
> 2.6.22: 3332 ms
> 2.6.23: 4397 ms
> 2.6.24: 8953 ms
> 2.6.24-git19: 8986 ms
My 3GHz P4 shows disjointed results.
2.6.22.17-smp
time 798 ms
time 780 ms
time 702 ms
2.6.22.17-cfs-v24.1-smp
time 562 ms
time 551 ms
time 551 ms
2.6.23.15-smp
time 254 ms
time 254 ms
time 293 ms
2.6.23.15-cfs-v24-smp
time 764 ms
time 791 ms
time 780 ms
2.6.24.1-smp
time 815 ms
time 820 ms
time 771 ms
2.6.25-smp (git today)
time 29 ms
time 61 ms
time 72 ms
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-09 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-09 0:04 Olof Johansson
2008-02-09 0:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-09 0:32 ` Olof Johansson
2008-02-09 7:58 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2008-02-09 8:03 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-09 10:58 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-09 11:40 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-09 13:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-09 16:19 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-09 17:33 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-10 5:29 ` Olof Johansson
2008-02-10 6:15 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-10 7:00 ` Olof Johansson
2008-02-10 7:58 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-11 8:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-11 17:26 ` Olof Johansson
2008-02-11 19:58 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-11 20:31 ` Olof Johansson
2008-02-12 9:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-13 5:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-11 21:45 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-02-12 4:30 ` Mike Galbraith
[not found] <fa.6N2dhyJ1cmBqiuFKgCaYfwduM+0@ifi.uio.no>
2008-02-09 1:49 ` Robert Hancock
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1202543920.9578.3.camel@homer.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome