[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <796A2A72-06B7-4B3D-AA38-DF558FC75857@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:09:19 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
CC: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement
On August 16, 2016 10:16:35 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:59:00AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Dang...
>
>Isn't 9.3% improvement a good thing(tm) ?
Yes, it's huge. The only explanation I could imagine is that scrambling %rdi caused the scheduler to do completely the wrong thing.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists