Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@...>
Cc: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...>, Greg Smith <gsmith@...>, lkml <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...>
Date: Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 8:24 am

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 14:09 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:

Yeah, something like so - or perhaps like you say cache the wakee.

I picked the wake_affine() condition, because I think that is the
biggest factor in this behaviour. You could of course also disable all
of sync.



diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index c86c5c5..856c2a8 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -950,6 +950,8 @@ struct sched_entity {
 	u64			last_wakeup;
 	u64			avg_overlap;
 
+	struct sched_entity 	*waker;
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
 	u64			wait_start;
 	u64			wait_max;
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 894a702..8971044 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1036,7 +1036,8 @@ wake_affine(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *this_sd, struct rq *this_rq,
 	 * a reasonable amount of time then attract this newly
 	 * woken task:
 	 */
-	if (sync && curr->sched_class == &fair_sched_class) {
+	if (sync && curr->sched_class == &fair_sched_class &&
+	    p->se.waker == curr->se->waker) {
 		if (curr->se.avg_overlap < sysctl_sched_migration_cost &&
 				p->se.avg_overlap < sysctl_sched_migration_cost)
 			return 1;
@@ -1210,6 +1211,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 	if (unlikely(se == pse))
 		return;
 
+	se->waker = pse;
 	cfs_rq_of(pse)->next = pse;
 
 	/*



--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Greg Smith, (Wed May 21, 1:34 pm)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Thu May 22, 3:10 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Thu May 22, 5:05 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Thu May 22, 6:34 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Thu May 22, 7:25 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu May 22, 7:44 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Thu May 22, 8:09 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu May 22, 8:24 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Fri May 23, 6:00 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Fri May 23, 9:05 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Fri May 23, 9:35 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Fri May 23, 6:15 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Fri May 23, 7:46 pm)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Sat May 24, 4:08 am)
Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+, Mike Galbraith, (Thu May 22, 9:16 am)