[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110614074418.GA3089@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:44:18 +0800
From: Hu Tao <hutao@...fujitsu.com>
To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.co>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] CFS Bandwidth Control V6
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:29:49PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> (2011/06/14 15:58), Hu Tao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've run several tests including hackbench, unixbench, massive-intr
> > and kernel building. CPU is Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3430 @ 2.40GHz,
> > 4 cores, and 4G memory.
> >
> > Most of the time the results differ few, but there are problems:
> >
> > 1. unixbench: execl throughout has about 5% drop.
> > 2. unixbench: process creation has about 5% drop.
> > 3. massive-intr: when running 200 processes for 5mins, the number
> > of loops each process runs differ more than before cfs-bandwidth-v6.
> >
> > The results are attached.
>
> I know the score of unixbench is not so stable that the problem might
> be noises ... but the result of massive-intr is interesting.
> Could you give a try to find which piece (xx/15) in the series cause
> the problems?
OK. I'll do it.
>
> Thanks,
> H.Seto
--
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