[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170605130021.GA3339@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:00:21 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, riel@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, efault@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, lvenanci@...hat.com,
xiaolong.ye@...el.com, kitsunyan@...ox.ru, clm@...com
Subject: Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core]
sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Please test..
>
> Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> applied.
>
> It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
> process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
> out:
This turned out to be a false positive; your patch improves things as
far as I can see.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists