From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: autoNUMA web workload regression
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 13:35:30 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1430908530.7444.145.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> (raw)
Hi Rik,
we observe a tremendous regression between kernel version 3.16 and 3.17
(and up), and I've bisected it to this commit:
a43455a sched/numa: Ensure task_numa_migrate() checks the preferred node
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a43455a1d572daf7b730fe12eb747d1e17411365
We run a Web server (nginx) on a 2-socket Haswell server and we emulate
an e-Commerce Web-site. Clients send requests to the server and measure
the response time. Clients load the server quite heavily - CPU
utilization is more than 90% as measured with turbostat. We use Fedora
20.
If I take 3.17 and revert this patch, I observe 600% or more average
response time improvement comparing to vanilla 3.17.
If I take 4.1-rc1 and revert this patch, I observe 300% or more average
response time improvement comparing to vanilla 3.17.
I asked Fengguang Wu to run LKP workloads on multiple 4 and 8 socket
machines for v4.1-rc1 with and without this patch, and there seem to be
no difference - all the micro-benchmarks performed similarly and the
difference were withing the error range.
IOW, it looks like this patch has bad effect on Web server QoS (slower
response time). What do you think?
Thank you!
next reply other threads:[~2015-05-06 10:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-06 10:35 Artem Bityutskiy [this message]
2015-05-06 10:37 ` Bityutskiy, Artem
2015-05-06 14:40 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-06 15:41 ` [PATCH] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing destination Rik van Riel
2015-05-06 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-06 17:06 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-07 13:29 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-05-08 13:13 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-05-08 20:03 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-08 22:52 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-11 11:11 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-05-11 14:20 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-12 13:50 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-05-12 15:45 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-13 6:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-13 6:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-13 10:59 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2015-05-13 13:51 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-11 12:44 ` Jirka Hladky
2015-05-11 14:44 ` Rik van Riel
2015-05-26 20:29 ` Rik van Riel
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=1430908530.7444.145.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com \
--to=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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