[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130127104039.GC8894@pd.tnic>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:40:39 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and
power awareness scheduling
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9,
> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads
> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear
> performance change found.
Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is
there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions
with the bunch of benchmarks.
> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark,
> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever
> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving
> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change.
I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit
when saving power...
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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