> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:25:34 +0200
>
> > On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Evgeniy Polyakov <s0mbre@tservice.net.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:42:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar (
mingo@elte.hu) wrote:
> > > > > > vanilla 27: 347.222
> > > > > > no TSO/GSO: 357.331
> > > > > > no hrticks: 382.983
> > > > > > no balance: 389.802
> > > > >
> > > > > okay. The target is 470 MB/sec, right? (Assuming the workload is sane
> > > > > and 'fixing' it does not mean we have to schedule worse.)
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's where I started/stopped, so maybe we will even move
> > > > further? :)
> > >
> > > that's the right attitude ;)
> >
> > Can anyone please tell me if there was any conclusion of this thread?
>
> I made some more analysis in private with Ingo and Peter Z. and found
> that the tbench decreases correlate pretty much directly with the
> ongoing increasing cpu cost of wake_up() and friends in the fair
> scheduler.
>
> The largest increase in computational cost of wakeups came in 2.6.27
> when the hrtimer bits got added, it more than tripled the cost of a wakeup.
> In 2.6.28-rc1 the hrtimer feature has been disabled, but I think that
> should be backports into the 2.6.27-stable branch.
>
> So I think that should be backported, and meanwhile I'm spending some
> time in the background trying to replace the fair schedulers RB tree
> crud with something faster so maybe at some point we can recover all
> of the regressions in this area caused by the CFS code.
