Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix the itimer regression (BZ 12618)

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 22:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 23:18 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 13:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > This should hopefully address all the itimer borkage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Applied to tip:timers/urgent, thanks Peter!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yanmin: could you check hacbench_pth with latest tip/master, do
> > > > > these fixes resolve that 3% regression you reported?
> > > >
> > > > Lin Ming tested it and hackbench_pth/volanoMark regression all disappear. 
> > > > But oltp has a regression. We think oltp new regression isn't related to 
> > > > the patch. Ming is investigating it.
> > > 
> > > Potential suspects for oltp regression would be:
> > > 
> > >  3d39870: sched_rt: don't use first_cpu on cpumask created with cpumask_and
> > >  a571bbe: sched: fix buddie group latency
> > >  a9f3e2b: sched: clear buddies more aggressively
> > >  1596e29: sched: symmetric sync vs avg_overlap
> > >  d942fb6: sched: fix sync wakeups
> > 
> > I tested the latest tip-master branch.
> > After reverting "d942fb6: sched: fix sync wakeups", the oltp regression
> > on the 8cores Stockley machine is mostly fixed.
> > 
> > On another 4*4 cores Tigerton machine, oltp has more than 10% regression
> > with 2.6.29-rc4 compared with 2.6.29-rc3.
> 
> ok, that commit needs fixed or reverted. Peter, Mike?

I see some ~problems.

Looking at the tasks sitting in my ~idle box right now:

tasks 284, avg_overlap = 0.000000 196

starts make -j30

tasks 401, avg_overlap = 0.000000 285

ï0.0 (should) means zero wakeups since birth, it does not mean this task
is showing synchronous behavior until it's non-zero.  New tasks start
with zero, so until they grow an avg_overlap, when they wake, at least
half of the decision making data is bogus/non-existent.  With make -j30,
I added 117 tasks, 89 are unknown, 28 known.  This parallel load _tries_
to go affine.  On an nfs mount where runners are also frequent (and
truly synchronous) wakers, it tries really hard.

IOW, I think the affinity logic may become too strong when strengthened
by flipping the hint.  I originally inverted that test to filter out the
case where we _have_ behavioral data indicating that the tasks in
question were definitely not synchronous despite the sync wakeup hint.

ïAnother ~problem is that a task with low avg_overlap can change
behavior to cpu hog, and retain it's stale avg_overlap up to forever.

Maybe we shouldn't use avg_overlap until it's been established.

But..

Flip-side: I have a strong feeling that that _not_ using it would have
negative impact.  Freshly forked task generates red-hot data for a yet
to be awakened partner...

Sigh.  Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

	-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/