[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150817112951.GA8133@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:29:51 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
yuyang.du@...el.com, mturquette@...libre.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, sgurrappadi@...dia.com,
pang.xunlei@....com.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/fair: Compute capacity invariant
load/utilization tracking
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 05:23:08PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > Target: ARM TC2 A7-only (x3)
> > Test: hackbench -g 25 --threads -l 10000
> >
> > Before After
> > 315.545 313.408 -0.68%
> >
> > Target: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 520 @ 2.40GHz
> > Test: hackbench -g 25 --threads -l 1000 (avg of 10)
> >
> > Before After
> > 6.4643 6.395 -1.07%
>
> Yeah, so that is a problem.
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but doesn't hackbench report execution so less
is better? In that case -1.07% means we are doing better with the
patches applied (after time < before time). In any case, I should have
indicated whether the change is good or bad for performance.
> I'm taking it some of the new scaling stuff doesn't compile away, can we
> look at fixing that?
I will double-check that the stuff goes away as expected. I'm pretty
sure it does on ARM.
--
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