From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030307AbWAXDuM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:50:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030317AbWAXDuM (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:50:12 -0500 Received: from omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.83.156]:5369 "EHLO omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030307AbWAXDuK (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:50:10 -0500 Message-ID: <43D5A3F0.1000206@bigpond.net.au> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:50:08 +1100 From: Peter Williams User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Bligh CC: Con Kolivas , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench References: <43C45BDC.1050402@google.com> <43C5BD8F.3000307@bigpond.net.au> <43C5BE4A.9030105@google.com> <200601121739.17886.kernel@kolivas.org> <43D52E6F.7040808@google.com> <43D5821A.7050001@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <43D5821A.7050001@bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH PLAIN at omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com from [147.10.133.38] using ID pwil3058@bigpond.net.au at Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:50:08 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Williams wrote: > Martin Bligh wrote: > >> >>> Thanks and looks like the results are in from 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 with the >>> patch backed out. >>> >>> Drumroll.... >>> >>> http://test.kernel.org/perf/kernbench.moe.png >>> >>> The performance goes back to a range similar to 2.6.14-rc1-mm1 (see >>> 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 + 20328 in blue). Unfortunately this does implicate >>> this patch. Can we put it back into -mm only and allow Peter's >>> tweaks/fixes to go on top and have it tested some more before going >>> upstream? >> >> >> >> Hmm. Looks like we didn't get this as fixed up as I thought. Moe seems >> to be fixed (16x NUMA-Q), but elm3b132 is not (it's 4x, flat SMP ia32). >> Look at the latest graphs .... >> >> Is it possible it only got fixed for NUMA boxes? > > > It should be totally independent. > > But anyhow, I can't see the problem. The only numbers that I can see > for 2.6.16-rc1-mm[1|2] (which are the ones with the latest fix) on this > graph are approx. 101 which is much the same as the best of the rest. Or > have I missed something? Oops. I was looking at the graphs for Moe but doesn't appear to be demonstrating a problem either. Given the fluctuation in the 2.6.16-rc1 results (235, 234, 211, 228.5 and 237.5), the results for 2.6.16-rc1-mm1 (229) and 2.6.16-mm2 (219) aren't significantly different. Peter PS I have a modification for kernbench that calculates and displays the standard deviations for the various averages if you're interested. This would enable you to display 95% (say) confidence bars on the graphed results which in turn makes it easier to spot significant differences. -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce