[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100123094315.GA16060@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:43:15 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Luca Zini <luca.zini@...il.com>,
aagaande@...il.com, rdelcueto@...mail.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>
Subject: Re: scheduler vs hardware? (was Re: another i7 (linux) bug?)
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 08:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > if I run a cpu intensive process with the lowest priority (19
> > > from man nice) I obtain much better performance that with the
> > > highest priority available (-20 from man nice).
> > >
> > > For example the same file is processed by lame in 8.7 seconds
> > > at the lowest priority, and in 12 seconds at the highest
> > > priority. Before posting a bug I wold like to understand if
> > > this is a problem related to the i7 mobile (my processor is a
> > > i7 Q720).
> > >
> > > As far as I tested on the same laptop series (dell studio 15),
> > > with the same kernel this problem does not exists.
> >
> > So you only see this on the i7. That's odd. Can you try 33-rc5?
> >
> > Posting a reliable reproducer would be nice. It'd also be nice to see
> > what all is running when you see this, and where.
>
> Using a sample from: http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php
>
> My laptop does:
>
>
> # time nice -n 19 lame -b 256 -V0 -h youcantdothat.wav - > /dev/null
A 'perf stat --repeat 3' run would tell us more about the underlying reasons i
think.
Ingo
--
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