On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 13:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: > On 06/03/2013 01:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > [snip] > >> > >> I agree that this idea, in other work, 'stop wake-affine when current is > >> busy with wakeup' may miss the chance to bring benefit, although I could > >> not find such workload, but I can't do promise... > > > > Someday we'll find the perfect balance... likely the day before the sun > > turns into a red giant and melts the earth. > > Won't take so long ;-) > > I would like to stop the regression on pgbench firstly, as PeterZ > mentioned, if someone reported other regressions, we will know what is > missing, if fix is possible, we fix it, if cost is too high, then I say > we ignore the illegal income, after all, we could not benefit one in the > cost of sacrifice others... > > I'd like to fix the problem ASAP, it's really a big, urgent problem on > my point of view, but doesn't win enough attentions as I thought it will...
I fully agree that it's a problem, but not that it's a regression. The "we became too buddy-centric" problem has existed for a long time, it's just that pgbench in 1:N mode shows us how much that pull pull pull can cost us in scalability. A much more interesting pgbench test (imho) would be with one server per socket. 1 server (mother of all work) driving a multi-socket sized load is just silly, can't possibly scale, so it's important that improving 1:N pgbench (we can, and need to) doesn't harm sane loads. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
