[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E921EC.5040501@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:54:28 +0530
From:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	aswin@...com, scott.norton@...com, chegu_vinod@...com,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] sched: Limit idle_balance()
Hi Json,
I ran ebizzy and kernbench benchmarks on your 3.11-rc1 + your        "V1
patch" on a 1 socket, 16 core powerpc machine. I thought I would let you
know the results before I try your V2.
Ebizzy: 30 seconds run. The table below shows the improvement in the
number of records completed. I have not spent enough time on the patch
to explain such a big improvement.
Number_of_threads   %improvement_with_patch
    4                          41.86%
    8                          9.8%
   12                          34.77%
   16                          28.37%
While on kernbench there was no significant change in the observation.
I will try patch V2 and let you know the results.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
--
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