Re: [Bug #10638] sysbench+mysql(oltp, readonly) 30% regressionwith 2.6.26-rc1

[Ingo Molnar]

* Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 11:45 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yanmin,
> > 
> > could you please check whether the performance regressions you 
> > noticed are now fixed in upstream -git? [make sure merge 
> > a7f75d3bed28 is included]
> > 
> > i believe most of the regressions to 2.6.25 you found should be 
> > addressed - if not, please let me know which one is still hurting.
>
> Most regressions are fixed.

great - thanks for the exhaustive testing! In fact there should be nice 
speedups in most of the categories as well ;-)

out of the 5 issues, only one is inconclusive:

> On 16-thread tulsa machine, hackbench result becomes 34 seconds. 
> 2.6.26-rc2's result is 40 seconds and 2.6.26-rc1's is 30 seconds. So 
> there is much improvement. On another Montvale machine(supporting 
> multi-threading, but I don't turn on it in BIOS), hackbench has the 
> similiar behavior.

okay, that's "hackbench 100", which creates a swarm of 2000 runnable 
tasks and which is extremely sensitive to wakeup preemption details. It 
is a volanomark work-alike, so if volanomark itself works fine (which it 
does appear, from your other numbers) and this one regresses a bit, i'm 
not sure there's anything fundamental to be worried about.

Quite likely you'll get more stable results if you run it all batched 
(which such workload really should):

 schedtool -B -e hackbench 100

right?

the 16-thread tulsa machine, how is it laid out physically: 2 sockets, 4 
cores per socket, 2 threads per core?

	Ingo
--
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/