[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160817054605.GA6728@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 07:46:05 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:09:19PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
I'm questioning the validity, actually. Report says test machine was
Sandy Bridge-EP and I'd bet good money this one has POPCNT support so
how are we even hitting that __sw_hweight64() path, at all?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists