All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:02:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1257494539.20688.17.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1257493130.16282.109.camel@ymzhang>


On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 15:38 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> Comparing with 2.6.31, specjbb2005 and aim7 have some regressions with
> 2.6.32-rc kernels on core2 machines.
> 
> 1) On 4*4 core tigerton: specjbb2005 has about 5% regression.
> 2) On 2*4 stoakley: aim7 has about 5% regression.
> 
> On Nehalem, specjbb2005 has about 2%~8%  improvement instead of regression.
> 
> aim7 has much dependency on schedule patameters, such like sched_latency_ns,
> sched_min_granularity_ns, and sched_wakeup_granularity_ns. 2.6.32-rc kernel
> decreases these parameter values. I restore them and retest aim7 on stoakley.
> aim7 regression becomes about 2% and specjbb2005 regression also becomes
> 2%. But on Nehalem, the improvement shrinks.

Yeah, the price of lower latency.  We may want to tweak big machine
setup a little.

Be advised that there's a locking problem which appears to be falsifying
benchmark results somewhat.  I've got a tentative fix, but I don't think
it's quite enough.  (I haven't looked yet at what protects cpus_allowed,
so aren't sure yet.)  Just wanted to let you know lest your testing time
investment may be producing somewhat skewed results, so you may want to
hold off a little bit.  (your testing time is much appreciated, don't
want to waste a single drop;)

	-Mike


  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-06  8:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-06  7:38 specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels Zhang, Yanmin
2009-11-06  8:02 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-11-06  8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-09  6:19   ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-11-09  7:09     ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-09  9:15       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-09  9:44         ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-11-09  9:57           ` Mike Galbraith
2009-11-09  9:55         ` Mike Galbraith

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=1257494539.20688.17.camel@marge.simson.net \
    --to=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.