[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1266086980.2677.52.camel@sbs-t61>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:49:40 -0800
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: "svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
"ego@...ibm.com" <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: change in sched cpu_power causing regressions with SCHED_MC
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2010-02-13 11:42:04]:
> > BTW, do you think its possible to automate such test cases and put them
> > in a test-suite?
>
> Linux Test Project (LTP) has some test cases for sched_mc/smt
> balancing.
It is very unfortunate that neither this nor Linux-kernel performance
tests that Yanmin and co tracks has caught these problems much before.
Ling Ma's focused tests/analysis for something else started showing
these basic issues.
> They can be improved and generalized to include all basic
> scheduler task placement checks.
Probably it is best if we can include the very basic checks/tests in the
kernel itself. More focused and extensive tests can be done outside the
kernel.
thanks,
suresh
--
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