[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160531124151.GK3190@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:41:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, lkp@...org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sched/fair] 53d3bc773e: hackbench.throughput -32.9%
regression
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:34:36PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Ingo,
>
> Part of the regression has been recovered in v4.7-rc1 from -32.9% to
> -9.8%. But there is still some regression. Is it possible for fully
> restore it?
after much searching on how you guys run hackbench... I figured
something like:
perf bench sched messaging -g 20 --thread -l 60000
on my IVB-EP (2*10*2) is similar to your IVT thing.
And running something like:
for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ; do echo performance > $i ; done
perf stat --null --repeat 10 -- perf bench sched messaging -g 20 --thread -l 60000 | grep "seconds time elapsed"
gets me:
v4.6:
36.786914089 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.49% )
37.054017355 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.05% )
origin/master (v4.7-rc1-ish):
34.757435264 seconds time elapsed ( +- 3.34% )
35.396252515 seconds time elapsed ( +- 3.38% )
Which doesn't show a regression between v4.6 and HEAD; in fact it shows
an improvement.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists