[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361082379.6088.22.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:26:19 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>,
Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()
On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 01:13 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I've been working on cleaning up the scheduler a little and I moved the
> call to idle_balance() from directly in the scheduler proper into the
> idle class. Benchmarks (well hackbench) improved slightly as I did this.
> I was adding some more tweaks and running perf stat on the results when
> I made a mistake and notice a drastic change.
>
> My runs looked something like this on my i7 4 core 4 hyperthreads:
>
> 293,801,912,874 cycles # 1.470 GHz ( +- 4.20% ) [100.00%]
> 215,927,081,108 cycles # 2.198 GHz ( +- 5.48% ) [100.00%]
Hm. Maybe set governor to performance?
-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