[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150907124220.GT18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:42:20 +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 31, 2015 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A quick run here gives:
>
> IVB-EP (2*20*2):
As noted by someone; that should be 2*10*2, for a total of 40 cpus in
this machine.
>
> perf stat --null --repeat 10 -- perf bench sched messaging -g 50 -l 5000
>
> Before: After:
> 5.484170711 ( +- 0.74% ) 5.590001145 ( +- 0.45% )
>
> Which is an almost 2% slowdown :/
>
> I've yet to look at what happens.
OK, so it appears this is link order nonsense. When I compared profiles
between the series, the one function that had significant change was
skb_release_data(), which doesn't make much sense.
If I do a 'make clean' in front of each build, I get a repeatable
improvement with this patch set (although how much of that is due to the
patches itself or just because of code movement is as yet undetermined).
I'm of a mind to apply these patches; with two patches on top, which
I'll post shortly.
--
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