Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 11:02 +0100, Cyrus Massoumi wrote:
Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 17:57 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 16:36 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 08:26 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]> wrote:
sub-bisecting captured patch
38ad464d410dadceda1563f36bdb0be7fe4c8938(sched: uniform tunings)
caused 20% regression of aim7.
The last 10% should be also related to sched parameters, such like
sysctl_sched_min_granularity.
ah, interesting. Since you have CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG enabled, could you
please try to figure out what the best value for
/proc/sys/kernel_sched_latency, /proc/sys/kernel_sched_nr_latency and
/proc/sys/kernel_sched_min_granularity is?
there's a tuning constraint for kernel_sched_nr_latency:
- kernel_sched_nr_latency should always be set to
kernel_sched_latency/kernel_sched_min_granularity. (it's not a free
tunable)
i suspect a good approach would be to double the value of
kernel_sched_latency and kernel_sched_nr_latency in each tuning
iteration, while keeping kernel_sched_min_granularity unchanged. That
will excercise the tuning values of the 2.6.23 kernel as well.
I followed your idea to test 2.6.24-rc1. The improvement is slow.
When sched_nr_latency=2560 and sched_latency_ns=640000000, the performance
is still about 15% less than 2.6.23.
I got the aim7 30% regression on my new upgraded stoakley machine. I found
this mahcine is slower than the old one. Maybe BIOS has issues, or memeory(Might not
be dual-channel?) is slow. So I retested it on the old machine and found on the old
stoakley machine, the regression is about 6%, quite similiar to the regression on tigerton
machine.
By sched_nr_latency=640 and sched_latency_ns=640000000 on the old stoakley machine,
the regression becomes about 2%. Other latency has more regression.
On my tulsa machine, by sched_nr_latency=640 and sched_latency_ns=640000000,
the regression becomes less than 1% (The original regression is about 20%).
I rerun SPECjbb by ched_nr_latency=640 and sched_latency_ns=640000000. On tigerton,
the regression is still more than 40%. On stoakley machine, it becomes worse (26%,
original is 9%). I will do more investigation to make sure SPECjbb regression is
also casued by the bad default values.
We need a smarter method to calculate the best default values for the key tuning
parameters.
One interesting is sysbench+mysql(readonly) got the same result like 2.6.22 (no
regression). Good job!
Do you mean you couldn't reproduce the regression which was reported
with 2.6.23 (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/30/53) with 2.6.24-rc1?
It looks like you missed my emails.
Yeah :(
Firstly, I reproduced (or just find the same myself :) ) the issue with kernel 2.6.22,
2.6.23-rc and 2.6.23.
Ingo wrote a big patch to fix it and the new patch is in 2.6.24-rc1 now.
That's nice, could you please point me to the commit?
Then I retested it with 2.6.24-rc1 on a couple of x86_64 machines. The issue
disappeared. You could test it with 2.6.24-rc1.
Will do!
It
would be nice if you could provide some numbers for 2.6.22, 2.6.23 and
2.6.24-rc1.
Sorry. Intel policy doesn't allow me to publish the numbers because only
specific departments in Intel could do that. But I could talk the regression
percentage.
Fair enough :)
-yanmin
greetings
Cyrus
-
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/
[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]
