mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:40:34 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43C47E32.4020001@bigpond.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200601111407.05738.kernel@kolivas.org>

Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:38 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> 
>>Con Kolivas wrote:
>> > I guess we need to check whether reversing this patch helps.
>>
>>It would be interesting to see if it does.
>>
>>If it does we probably have to wear the cost (and try to reduce it) as
>>without this change smp nice support is fairly ineffective due to the
>>fact that it moves exactly the same tasks as would be moved without it.
>>  At the most it changes the frequency at which load balancing occurs.
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the current implementation changes the balancing according 
> to nice much more effectively than previously where by their very nature, low 
> priority tasks were balanced more frequently and ended up getting their own 
> cpu.

I can't follow the logic here and I certainly don't see much difference 
in practice.

> No it does not provide firm 'nice' handling that we can achieve on UP 
> configurations but it is also free in throughput terms and miles better than 
> without it. I would like to see your more robust (and nicer code) solution 
> incorporated but I also want to see it cost us as little as possible. We 
> haven't confirmed anything just yet...

Yes, that's true.  I must admit that I wouldn't have expected the 
increased overhead to be very big.  In general, the "system" CPU time in 
a kernbench is only about 1% of the total CPU time and the extra 
overhead should be just a fraction of that.

It's possible that better distribution of niceness across CPU leads to 
more preemption within a run queue (i.e. if there all the same priority 
they won't preempt each other much) leading to more context switches. 
But you wouldn't expect that to show up in kernbench as the tasks are 
all the same niceness and usually end up with the same dynamic priority.

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-01-11  3:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-01-11  1:14 Martin Bligh
2006-01-11  1:31 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11  1:41   ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11  1:48     ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11  1:49     ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11  2:38       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  3:07         ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11  3:12           ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11  3:40           ` Peter Williams [this message]
2006-01-11  3:49             ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11  4:33               ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  5:14             ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  6:21               ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-11 12:24                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 14:29                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 22:05                     ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  0:54                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  1:18                         ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  1:29                           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  1:36                             ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  2:23                               ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12  2:26                                 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12  6:39                                   ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-23 19:28                                     ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-24  1:25                                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24  3:50                                         ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24  4:41                                           ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-24  6:22                                             ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24  6:42                                               ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-28 23:20                                                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-29  0:52                                                   ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12  2:27                                 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  2:04                           ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12  6:35                             ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12  6:41                               ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12  6:54                                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 18:39                         ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 20:03                           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 22:20                             ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13  7:06                               ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 12:00                                 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 16:15                                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-13 16:26                                 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 17:54                                   ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 20:41                                     ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-14  0:23                                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14  5:03                                         ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14  5:40                                           ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-14  6:05                                             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14  5:53                                           ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14  6:13                                             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-13 22:59                                     ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 18:48                                 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-15  0:05                                   ` Peter Williams
2006-01-15  2:04                                     ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-15  2:09                                     ` [PATCH] sched - remove unnecessary smpnice ifdefs Con Kolivas
2006-01-15  3:50                                     ` -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Ingo Molnar
2006-01-12  1:25                       ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11  1:52     ` Andrew Morton

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=43C47E32.4020001@bigpond.net.au \
    --to=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@google.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®