[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 14:11:38 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] sched: Optionally skip uclamp logic in fast path
On 07/07/20 14:29, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 12:41, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On 07/03/20 14:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > I have run the perf bench sched pipe that have have already run
> > > previously with this v6 and the results are similar to my previous
> > > tests:
> > > The impact is -1.61% similarly to v2 which is better compared the
> > > original -3.66% without your patch
> >
> > Thanks Vincent.
> >
> > Can you afford doing a capture of `perf record` and share the resulting
> > perf.dat with vmlinux (with debug symbols)?
>
> Will try to make it by end of the week
Thanks! If you want a place to drop them let me know.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
>
> >
> > Having a before/after capture would be even better.
> >
> > Not sure if we can do much about this -1.61% in your case, but it'd be good to
> > understand why if possible. perf bench sched pipe is very sensitive to tiniest
> > of changes which could be due to binary-to-binary differences.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists