Re: 20% performance drop on PostgreSQL 9.2 from kernel 3.5.3 to3.6-rc5 on AMD chipsets - bisected

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 23:37 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:

> The way I understand it is, you either want to share L2 with a process,
> because, for example, both working sets fit in the L2 and/or there's
> some sharing which saves you moving everything over the L3. This is
> where selecting a core on the same L2 is actually a good thing.

Yeah, and if the wakee can't get to the L2 hot data instantly, it may be
better to let wakee drag the data to an instantly accessible spot.

> Or, they're too big to fit into the L2 and they start kicking each-other
> out. Then you want to spread them out to different L2s - i.e., different
> HT groups in Intel-speak.
> 
> Oh, and then there's the userspace spinlocks thingie where Mike's patch
> hurts us.
> 
> Btw, Mike, you can jump in anytime :-)

I think the pgbench problem is more about latency for the 1 in 1:N than
spinlocks.

> So I'd say, this is the hard scheduling problem where fitting the
> workload to the architecture doesn't make everyone happy.

Yup.  I find it hard at least.

> A crazy thought: one could go and sample tasks while running their
> timeslices with the perf counters to know exactly what type of workload
> we're looking at. I.e., do I have a large number of L2 evictions? Yes,
> then spread them out. No, then select the other core on the L2. And so
> on.

Hm.  That sampling better be really cheap.  Might help... but how does
that affect pgbench and ilk that must spread regardless of footprints.

-Mike

--
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/