On 04/02/2013 04:35 PM, Alex Shi wrote: [snip] >> >> The reason may caused by wake_affine()'s higher overhead, and pgbench is >> really sensitive to this stuff... > > Thanks for testing. Could you like to remove the last patch and test it > again? I want to know if the last patch has effect on pgbench.
Done, here the results of pgbench without the last patch on my box: | db_size | clients | tps | | tps | +---------+---------+-------+ +-------+ | 22 MB | 1 | 10662 | | 10679 | | 22 MB | 2 | 21483 | | 21471 | | 22 MB | 4 | 42046 | | 41957 | | 22 MB | 8 | 55807 | | 55684 | | 22 MB | 12 | 50768 | | 52074 | | 22 MB | 16 | 49880 | | 52879 | | 22 MB | 24 | 45904 | | 53406 | | 22 MB | 32 | 43420 | | 54088 | +24.57% | 7484 MB | 1 | 7965 | | 7725 | | 7484 MB | 2 | 19354 | | 19405 | | 7484 MB | 4 | 37552 | | 37246 | | 7484 MB | 8 | 48655 | | 50613 | | 7484 MB | 12 | 45778 | | 47639 | | 7484 MB | 16 | 45659 | | 48707 | | 7484 MB | 24 | 42192 | | 46469 | | 7484 MB | 32 | 36385 | | 46346 | +27.38% | 15 GB | 1 | 7677 | | 7727 | | 15 GB | 2 | 19227 | | 19199 | | 15 GB | 4 | 37335 | | 37372 | | 15 GB | 8 | 48130 | | 50333 | | 15 GB | 12 | 45393 | | 47590 | | 15 GB | 16 | 45110 | | 48091 | | 15 GB | 24 | 41415 | | 47415 | | 15 GB | 32 | 35988 | | 45749 | +27.12% Very nice improvement, I'd like to test it with the wake-affine throttle patch later, let's see what will happen ;-) Any idea on why the last one caused the regression? Regards, Michael Wang > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
