Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ok, so another important datapoint:
> 
> with c1e4fe711a4 (just before CFS has been merged for 2.6.23), the dbench 
> throughput measures
> 
> 	187.7 MB/s
> 
> in our testing conditions (default config).
> 
> With c31f2e8a42c4 (just after CFS has been merged for 2.6.23), the 
> throughput measured by dbench is
> 
> 	82.3 MB/s
> 
> This is the huge drop we have been looking for. After this, the 
> performance was still going down gradually, up to ~45 MS/ we are 
> measuring for 2.6.27. But the biggest drop (more than 50%) points 
> directly to CFS merge.

that is a well-known property of dbench: it rewards unfairness in IO, 
memory management and scheduling.

The way to get the best possible dbench numbers in CPU-bound dbench 
runs, you have to throw away the scheduler completely, and do this 
instead:

 - first execute all requests of client 1
 - then execute all requests of client 2
 ....
 - execute all requests of client N

the moment the clients are allowed to overlap, the moment their requests 
are executed more fairly, the dbench numbers drop.

	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/