[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515AA8B8.2090009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:45:28 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de,
morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
len.brown@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch v3 0/8] sched: use runnable avg in load balance
On 04/02/2013 04:35 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 04/02/2013 03:23 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The reason may caused by wake_affine()'s higher overhead, and pgbench is
>> really sensitive to this stuff...
>
> Thanks for testing. Could you like to remove the last patch and test it
> again? I want to know if the last patch has effect on pgbench.
Amazing, without the last one, pgbench show very good improvement,
higher than 10ms throttle, lower than 100ms throttle, I need confirm
this with a night-through testing.
I will look into those patches in detail later, I think it addressed
part of the wake_affine() issue (make the decision more accurately),
that's nice ;-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
--
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