From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, 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: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:23:50 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43C84496.6060506@bigpond.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43C81073.1040805@google.com>
Martin Bligh wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Attached is a new patch to fix the excessive idle problem. This patch
>>>> takes a new approach to the problem as it was becoming obvious that
>>>> trying to alter the load balancing code to cope with biased load was
>>>> harder than it seemed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok. Tried testing different-approach-to-smp-nice-problem against the
>>> transition release 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 but it doesn't apply. Am testing
>>> against 2.6.15-mm3 right now. Will let you know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't appear to help if I am analysing the graphs right. Martin?
>
>
> Nope. still broken.
Interesting. The only real difference between this and Con's original
patch is the stuff that he did in source_load() and target_load() to
nobble the bias when nr_running is 1 or less. With this new model it
should be possible to do something similar in those functions but I'll
hold off doing anything until a comparison against 2.6.15-mm3 with the
patch removed is available (as there are other scheduler changes in -mm3).
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-14 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-11 1:14 -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench 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
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 [this message]
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=43C84496.6060506@bigpond.net.au \
--to=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).