[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1271277923.2875.35.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:45:23 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2 1/2] sched: check for prev_cpu == this_cpu before
calling wake_affine()
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 23:20 -0700, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Do you have a compute load bouncing painfully which this patch cures?
>
> I have no strong objections, and the result is certainly easier on the
> eye. If I were making the decision, I'd want to see some numbers.
Mike, PeterZ,
Finally got sometime to get back to this and provide some data backing
up my patch under discussion. Here are my test results:
System is a two socket quad-core NHM-EP with SMT enabled and the
workload is specjbb2005.
Warehouses Throughput
tip tip+proposed-fix
1 35142 35027
2 73563 75977
3 105806 109836
4 133421 142490
5 152151 168888
6 164936 195392
7 184763 208155
8 192419 223846
PeterZ, I think the above clearly shows that we have a problem with the
current -tip code. Please consider the proposed patch (which can be
found at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127007936408754&w=2)
Mike, with the above data, can I have your Ack for the patch?
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