[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1269240110.13618.26.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:41:50 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Bug #14950] tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1
On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:30 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. Please verify if it still should
> be listed and let the tracking team know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14950
> Subject : tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1
> Submitter : Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
> Date : 2009-12-25 11:11 (87 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126174044213172&w=4
This needs retest in tip. I submitted some patchlets to shave a few
cycles, with which my box (fwtw) shows zero regression 2.6.31 ->
tip.today, whereas there was nothing but regression of up to ~6% in
between, magnitude seemingly depending on phase-of-moon. Actually,
patched tip at submission time was a fraction above 31 throughput.
Retesting today, it's a fraction of a percent below again (tbench is
annoyingly jittery).
Hopefully, this tbench regression is on it's way to retirement.
-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