Re: 2.6.4-mm2

From: Nick Piggin (piggin_at_cyberone.com.au)
Date: 03/20/04

  • Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: 2.6.4-mm2"
    Date:	Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:52:35 +1100
    To: Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org>
    
    

    Mark Wong wrote:

    >On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 06:50:26PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >
    >>Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 07:41:50PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Mark, if it's OK I'll run up some kernels for you to test.
    >>>>>
    >>>>At
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/markw/
    >>>>
    >>>Ok, looks like I take the first hit with the 02 patch. Here's re-summary:
    >>>
    >>>kernel 16 kb 32 kb 64 kb 128 kb 256 kb 512 kb
    >>>2.6.3 2308 2335 2348 2334
    >>>2.6.4-mm2 2028 2048 2074 2096 2082 2078
    >>>2.6.5-rc1-01 2394
    >>>2.6.5-rc1-02 2117
    >>>2.6.5-rc1-mm2 2036
    >>>
    >>Thanks, so it's the CPU scheduler changes. Is that machine hyperthreaded?
    >>And do you have CONFIG_X86_HT enabled?
    >>
    >
    >Yes and CONFIG_X86_HT is enabled but I have hyperthreading disabled with
    >'acpi=off noht' (whichever one does it.)
    >

    The oprofile for the 01 kernel says
    CPU: P4 / Xeon, speed 1497.76 MHz (estimated)
    while the 02 kernel says
    CPU: P4 / Xeon with 2 hyper-threads, speed 1497.57 MHz (estimated)
    What's going on there?

    Other than that, nothing in the kernel profile jumps out at me:
    schedule, __copy_from_user_ll and __copy_to_user_ll are all
    significantly lower *after* the CPU scheduler changes, which
    is an indicator that cache behaviour is better.

    Sar says average context switches/second were 9064 and 6567 before
    and after.

    The only thing I can see is the CPU utilisation averages show the
    scheduler patches have more of a tendancy to load up one CPU more
    before moving to another. This actually should be good behaviour,
    generally but I wonder if it is hurting at all. I would be really
    surprised if it was that significant.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


  • Next message: Andrew Morton: "Re: 2.6.4-mm2"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: 2.6.0-test2-mm2
      ... CPU scheduler changes ... still got quite severe skipping toward the end of the 8 min process. ... heavy disk I/O, please let me know about that too. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: 2.6.0-test3-mm3
      ... The regression with reaim which was due to the CPU scheduler changes ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: reaim - 2.6.3-mm1 IO performance down.
      ... > not that I'd be suspecting CPU scheduler changes. ... Do you have uniprocessor ... am re-running 2.6.3-mm1 right now. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: 2.6.0-test3-mm3
      ... The regression with reaim which was due to the CPU scheduler changes ... preliminary ACPI workarounds and the cyclone timer one-liner, ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: reaim - 2.6.3-mm1 IO performance down.
      ... >> not that I'd be suspecting CPU scheduler changes. ... Do you have uniprocessor ... > Gross results are within 1%, but looking at the detail, i do see badness, ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)