From: Jie Chen <chen@jlab.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:39:12 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <475EBD30.1010506@jlab.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071211155226.GA1056@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jie Chen <chen@jlab.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Ingo:
>>
>> I guess it is a good news. I did patch 2.6.21.7 kernel using your cfs
>> patch. The results of pthread_sync is the same as the non-patched
>> 2.6.21 kernel. This means the performance of is not related to the
>> scheduler. As for overhead of the gettimeofday, there is no difference
>> between 2.6.21 and 2.6.24-rc4. The reference time is around 10.5 us
>> for both kernel.
>
> could you please paste again the relevant portion of the output you get
> on a "good" .21 kernel versus the output you get on a "bad" .24 kernel?
>
>> So what is changed between 2.6.21 and 2.6.22? Any hints :-). Thank you
>> very much for all your help.
>
> we'll figure it out i'm sure :)
>
> Ingo
Hi, Ingo:
The following is pthread_sync output for 2.6.21.7-cfs-v24 #1 SMP kernel.
2 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.489085 10.488800 10.491100 0.000539 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.489085 microseconds +/- 0.001057
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 11.106580 11.105650 11.109700 0.001255 0
PARALLEL time = 11.106580 microseconds +/- 0.002460
PARALLEL overhead = 0.617590 microseconds +/- 0.003409
8 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.488735 10.488500 10.490700 0.000484 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.488735 microseconds +/- 0.000948
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 13.000647 12.991050 13.052700 0.012592 1
PARALLEL time = 13.000647 microseconds +/- 0.024680
PARALLEL overhead = 2.511907 microseconds +/- 0.025594
Output for Kernel 2.6.24-rc4 #1 SMP
2 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.510535 10.508600 10.518200 0.002237 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.510535 microseconds +/- 0.004384
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 19.668450 19.650200 19.679650 0.008052 0
PARALLEL time = 19.668450 microseconds +/- 0.015782
PARALLEL overhead = 9.157945 microseconds +/- 0.018217
8 threads:
Computing reference time 1
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 10.491285 10.490100 10.494900 0.001085 1
Reference_time_1 = 10.491285 microseconds +/- 0.002127
Computing PARALLEL time
Sample_size Average Min Max S.D. Outliers
20 13.090080 13.079150 13.131450 0.010995 1
PARALLEL time = 13.090080 microseconds +/- 0.021550
PARALLEL overhead = 2.598590 microseconds +/- 0.024534
For 8 threads, both kernels have the similar performance number. But for
2 threads, the 2.6.21 is much better than 2.6.24-rc4. Thank you.
--
###############################################
Jie Chen
Scientific Computing Group
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
12000, Jefferson Ave.
Newport News, VA 23606
(757)269-5046 (office) (757)269-6248 (fax)
chen@jlab.org
###############################################
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-11 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-21 20:34 Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Jie Chen
2007-11-21 22:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-11-22 1:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-11-22 2:32 ` Simon Holm Thøgersen
2007-11-22 2:58 ` Jie Chen
2007-11-22 20:19 ` Matt Mackall
2007-12-04 13:17 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above, 2.6.24-rc4 Ingo Molnar
2007-12-04 15:41 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:16 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 16:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-12-05 16:22 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 16:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 17:47 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:23 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 20:52 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-05 21:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-05 22:16 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-06 10:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-06 16:29 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-10 10:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-10 20:04 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 10:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 15:28 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-11 15:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 16:39 ` Jie Chen [this message]
2007-12-11 21:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-12-11 22:11 ` Jie Chen
2007-12-12 12:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:36 ` Possible bug from kernel 2.6.22 and above Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-05 20:53 ` Jie Chen
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=475EBD30.1010506@jlab.org \
--to=chen@jlab.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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).