[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529187EE.4010304@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:00:30 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, tony.luck@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com
CC: james.hogan@...tec.com, jason.low2@...com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay.
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> The git tree for this patchset at:
>> git@...hub.com:alexshi/power-scheduling.git no-load-idx
>> Since Fengguang had included this tree into his kernel testing system.
>> and I haven't get a regression report until now. I suppose it is fine
>> for x86 system.
>>
>> But anyway, since the scheduler change will effect all archs. and
>> hackbench is only benchmark I found now for this patchset. I'd like to
>> see more testing and talking on this patchset.
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
> following result:
>
> kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
>
> hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
> 27.604 38.556
Thanks for your testing, Daniel!
Fengguang, how about your kernel results for this patchset?
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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