[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160409110729.GS3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:07:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [regression] cross core scheduling frequency drop bisected to
0c313cb20732
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:59:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, April 08, 2016 08:50:54 AM Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 08:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > Cute, I thought you used governor=performance for your runs?
> >
> > I do, and those numbers are with it thus set.
>
> Well, this is a trade-off.
>
> 4.5 introduced a power regression here so this one goes back to the previous
> state of things.
Just for my elucidation; how can gov=performance have a 'power'
regression?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists