Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

[Josef Bacik]

On 06/03/2015 01:43 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 13:16 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > Eesh ok, do you happen to remember how you ran tbench so I can add it to
> > my tests here?  In addition to fixing this problem we're also interested
> > in tracking performance of new kernels so we don't have to do this "what
> > the hell went wrong in the last 6 releases" dance every year, so I'm
> > throwing every performance thing we find useful in our test
> > infrastructure.  Thanks,
> >
> > Josef
>
> Start a tbench server, then tbench -t 30 1 localhost.  You're unlikely
> to find anything as painful as that bouncing cow bug was, but you won't
> have to look hard at all to find bounce pain.
>
> There are also other loads like your server where waking to an idle cpu
> dominates all else, pgbench is one of those.  In that case, you've got a
> 1:N waker/wakee relationship, and what matters above ALL else is when
> the mother of all work (the single server thread) wants a CPU, it had
> better get it NOW, else the load stalls.  Likewise, 'mom' being
> preempted hurts truckloads.  Perhaps your server has a similar thing
> going on, keeping wakees the hell away from the waker rules all.

Yeah our server has two waker threads (one per numa node) and then the N 
number of wakee threads.  I'll run tbench and pgbench with the new 
patches and see if there's a degredation.  Thanks,

Josef

--
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/