linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/fair: Compute capacity invariant load/utilization tracking

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150817114835.GB20948@worktop>
Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:48:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
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 Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:29:51PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> 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.

Ah, uhm.. you have a point there ;-) I'll run the numbers when I'm back
home again.
--
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/