We can confirm that using NO_PLACE_LAG adds back 5% of the performance that was lost. However, we have not yet measured what effect this will have on other benchmarks.
On 11/13/24 13:22, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
On 11/13/24 13:19, Phil Auld wrote:
Hi,Thanks so much for the suggestion, Phil! I will give that a try and report the results.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 01:03:00PM -0500 Joseph Salisbury wrote:
Hello,You can try turning off the PLACE_LAG sched feature:
During performance testing, we found a regression of ~9% performance with
the TPCC benchmark. This performance regression was introduced in
v6.6-rc1. After a bisect, the following commit was identified as the cause
of the regression:
86bfbb7ce4f6 ("sched/fair: Add lag based placement")
I was hoping to get some feedback from the scheduler folks. Do you think
gathering any additional data will help diagnose this issue? Are there any
tunable options that can changed to see how performance is affected?
echo NO_PLACE_LAG > /sys/kernel/debug/sched/features
It's not what I'd call a tunable but it would allow you to test w/o it and
see what it does. It should allow you to switch back and forth easily for
testing.
Cheers,
Phil
I just noticed this thread, which is probably related:
Thanks,
Joe
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZxuujhhrJcoYOdMJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MhxYsyXTgwxk1HIWrxUHGSEZcJyBENlm5apMv2TEqf6Tn2uoi14-V8YSTymPDvjax78DSQR4m6zdQiJwxJ89K8iTmWl4hvUQ$