[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinrtz36tDZT2C39aVRsws-wmRraLGsMZ8_zxFA+@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:31:57 -0800
From: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>,
"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>, zheng.z.yan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [performance bug] volanomark regression on 37-rc1
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 20:38 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
>> Does VolanoMark is used for scheduler benchmarking? If I'm not wrong,
>> I don't think it directly relates to scheduler benchmarking.
>
> It's not generally considered to be a wonderful benchmark, but it is a
> good indicator, and worth keeping an eye on IMHO.
>
> I don't recall whether that patch works with the idle testcase without
> resetting the throttle, or if it's only a bit less effective. If it's
> only a little less effective, I'd be inclined to just whack the reset as
> Alex did. Whatever is done has to prevent high frequency balancing.
>
>From what I recall, I think removing the reset makes the original
patch a little less effective. I agree that we can remove the reset if
it hurts high frequency balancing.
-Thanks,
Nikhil
--
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