Re: SMP performance degradation with sysbench

[Nick Piggin]

Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi lkml,
> > >>
> > >> according to the test below (sysbench) Linux seems to have scalability
> > >> problems beyond 8 client threads:
> > >> http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/6268.html#cutid1
> > >> http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html
> > >> Hardware is an 8-core amd64 system and jeffr seems willing to try more
> > >> Linux versions on that machine.
> > >> Anyway, is there anyone who can reproduce this?
> > >
> > >
> > > I have reproduced it on a quad core test system.
> > >
> > > With 4 threads (on 4 cores) I get a high throughput, with
> > > approximately 58% user time and 42% system time.
> > >
> > > With 8 threads (on 4 cores) I get way lower throughput,
> > > with 37% user time, 29% system time 35% idle time!
> > >
> > > The maximum time taken per query also increases from
> > > 0.0096s to 0.5273s. Ouch!
> > >
> > > I don't know if this is MySQL, glibc or Linux kernel,
> > > but something strange is going on...
> >
> > Like you, I'm also seeing idle time start going up as threads increase.
> >
> > I initially thought this was a problem with the multiprocessor scheduler,
> > because the pattern is exactly like some artificat in the load balancing.
> >
> > However, after looking at the stats, and testing a couple of things, I
> > think it may not be after all.
> >
> > I've reproduced this on a 8-socket/16-way dual core Opteron. So far what
> > I am seeing is that MySQL is having trouble putting enough load into the
> > scheduler.
>
>
> Here are some graphs from the 4-socket/8-way Xeon box (no SMT, no MC
> in .config) I posted about earlier.
>
> transactions.png resembles Nick's results pretty closely, in that a
> drop-off occurs, at the same # of threads, too. That seems weird to
> me, but I haven't thought about it too closely. Shouldn't Nick's be
> dropping off closer to 16 threads (that would be 1 per core, then,
> right?)

I don't think it is exactly a matter of processes >= cores, but rather
just a general problem at higher concurrency.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/