Re: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23

[Ingo Molnar]

* Serge Belyshev <belyshev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I think we found the reason for that regression - would you mind 
> > to re-test with latest -tip, e157986 or later?
> >
> > If that works for you i'll describe our theory.
> >
> 
> Good job -- seems to work, thanks.  Regression is still about 3% 
> though: http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5335/epicbfstip.png

Ok, thanks for the update. The problem is that i've run out of 
testsystems that can reproduce this. So we need your help to debug 
this directly ...

A good start would be to post the -tip versus BFS "perf stat" 
measurement results:

   perf stat --repeat 3 make -j4 bzImage

And also the -j8 perf stat result, so that we can see what the 
difference is between -j4 and -j8.

Note: please check out latest tip and do:

  cd tools/perf/
  make -j install

To pick up the latest 'perf' tool. In particular the precision of 
--repeat has been improved recently so you want that binary from 
-tip even if you measure vanilla .31 or .31 based BFS.

Also, it would be nice if you could send me your kernel config - 
maybe it's some config detail that keeps me from being able to 
reproduce these results. I havent seen a link to a config in your 
mails (maybe i missed it - these threads are voluminous).

	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/