Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

[Michael Wang]

On 07/05/2013 01:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Have you tried to use more loops and groups? will that show even bigger
>> regressions?
> 
> Nope, less on either side.
> 
> hackbench -g 100 -l 1000
>                                                                        avg
> 3.10.0-regress    21.895    21.564    21.777    21.958    22.093    21.857     1.000
> 3.10.0-regressx   22.844    23.268    23.056    23.231    22.375    22.954     1.050
> 
> hackbench -g 1 -l 100000
>                                                                        avg
> 3.10.0-regress    29.913    29.711    30.395    30.213    30.236    30.093     1.000
> 3.10.0-regressx   30.392    31.003    30.728    31.008    30.389    30.704     1.020

Hmm...I'm not expecting to reserve all of the 15%, but this still seems
a little bit more...

PeterZ has suggested some optimization which I sent out yesterday, I
suppose they haven't been included into this test yet, correct?

Since currently I could not reproduce the issue on my box with that
patch, I suppose it may solved that issue ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
>> BTW, is this the results of 10 group and 40 sockets == 400 tasks?
> 
> Yeah, stock.
> 
> Off to do some body/mind tuning.  Bavarian mushrooms don't hide as well
> as memory access thingies.. and I can still out run 'em.
> 
> -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/
> 

--
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/