[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610251251400.4990@nanos>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:57:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
cc: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
x86@...nel.org, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [x86/platform/UV] 71854cb812: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
-2.3% regression
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed a -2.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
>
> commit 71854cb812ec23bfe5f63d52217e6b9e6cb901f5 ("x86/platform/UV: Fix support for EFI_OLD_MEMMAP after BIOS callback updates")
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Alex-Thorlton/x86-platform-UV-Fix-support-for-EFI_OLD_MEMMAP-after-BIOS-callback-updates/20161020-095215
>
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 12 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU X 980 @ 3.33GHz with 6G memory
This is completely bogus. That patch does not even affect anything outside
of the SGI UV platform. And on your i7 system uv_bios_call() is definitely
not invoked.
I appreciate your effort, but posting such obviously bogus results does not
make people more confident in your testing efforts.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists