[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:21:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
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 Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> 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.
Hooray, I'll move it to a part of the queue intended for merging.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists