[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyNAigQqBk07xLpf0nkhZ_x-QkBYG8otRzsqg_8A2eg-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:16:41 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB
range flush v2
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
>
> ebizzy
> 3.13.0-rc3 3.4.69 3.13.0-rc3 3.13.0-rc3
> thread vanilla vanilla altershift-v2r1 nowalk-v2r7
> Mean 1 7377.91 ( 0.00%) 6812.38 ( -7.67%) 7784.45 ( 5.51%) 7804.08 ( 5.78%)
> Mean 2 8262.07 ( 0.00%) 8276.75 ( 0.18%) 9437.49 ( 14.23%) 9450.88 ( 14.39%)
> Mean 3 7895.00 ( 0.00%) 8002.84 ( 1.37%) 8875.38 ( 12.42%) 8914.60 ( 12.91%)
> Mean 4 7658.74 ( 0.00%) 7824.83 ( 2.17%) 8509.10 ( 11.10%) 8399.43 ( 9.67%)
> Mean 5 7275.37 ( 0.00%) 7678.74 ( 5.54%) 8208.94 ( 12.83%) 8197.86 ( 12.68%)
> Mean 6 6875.50 ( 0.00%) 7597.18 ( 10.50%) 7755.66 ( 12.80%) 7807.51 ( 13.56%)
> Mean 7 6722.48 ( 0.00%) 7584.75 ( 12.83%) 7456.93 ( 10.93%) 7480.74 ( 11.28%)
> Mean 8 6559.55 ( 0.00%) 7591.51 ( 15.73%) 6879.01 ( 4.87%) 6881.86 ( 4.91%)
Hmm. Do you have any idea why 3.4.69 still seems to do better at
higher thread counts?
No complaints about this patch-series, just wondering..
Linus
--
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