[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225012546.8566.33.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:15:46 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
rjw@...k.pl, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, s0mbre@...rvice.net.ru,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.
On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 10:00 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 09:46 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I reproduced this on my Q6600 box. However, I also reproduced it with
> > 2.6.22.19. What I think you're seeing is just dbench creating a
> > massive train wreck.
>
> wasn't dbench one of those non-benchmarks that thrives on randomness and
> unfairness?
>
> Andrew said recently:
> "dbench is pretty chaotic and it could be that a good change causes
> dbench to get worse. That's happened plenty of times in the past."
>
> So I'm not inclined to worry too much about dbench in any way shape or
> form.
Yeah, I was just curious. The switch rate of dbench isn't high enough
for math to be an issue, so I wondered how the heck CFS could be such a
huge problem for this load. Looks to me like all the math in the
_world_ couldn't hurt.. or help.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists