From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752967AbXJaD0m (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:26:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751955AbXJaD0f (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:26:35 -0400 Received: from smtp101.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.211]:45701 "HELO smtp101.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751944AbXJaD0e (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:26:34 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=lyHEuvOGZEQT3Jhy1jb0lYEpsMWpB4u97enk77p2/XKGtFsPEwcNpg5Xsmp9nUscpPXj41vtjplT4YX5cS8tvZQJYGgD3qIISMATE+vo0URHZph3GjK4zMQuA1g1XD9JEyxmHnCyVwsFUvlyQTjwIRIhHN5Q9KVOPMiLllghKps= ; X-YMail-OSG: ZzK0wVEVM1nl0wCwG6hXku1_2_sAUoE0tpuumiC7blQ6PMd1Z_bYWnkUd2o6XA87ozMNK42Iju..pnVNcYlLk3QTeQ-- From: Nick Piggin To: "Lorenzo Allegrucci" , "=?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn?=" Subject: Re: 2.6.23 performance regression Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:19:53 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <4dcf7d360710300054m7ac77445pf786bd9044b572d7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4dcf7d360710300054m7ac77445pf786bd9044b572d7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710311319.54210.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 30 October 2007 18:54, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote: > Hi, sorry if this is a faq but reading > http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20Preview.pdf (slides 17, > 18) > looks like 2.6.23 is having a performance regression on MySQL and > PostgreSQL benchmarks. Has anyone investigated these? I think Ingo was looking into them. I'm just in the middle of building a new setup to investigate some performance issues too, so I hope to look at this. Apparently it did go unnoticed during CFS testing, unfortunately. Although now it has been brought to light, I think 2.6.24 is supposed to be better (although it now gets worse on other things).