Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench

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                                   [email protected]

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• References:
  • -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Martin Bligh <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Martin Bligh <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]>
  • Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
    • From: Martin Bligh <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: Dual core Athlons and unsynced TSCs
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.15] ia64: use i386 dmi_scan.c
• Previous by thread: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
• Next by thread: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]