[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d091f321-540c-acc7-4340-72b80cbe7296@linux.ee>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 14:40:05 +0200
From: Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
To: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
valentin.schneider@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
mgorman@...e.de, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linuxarm@...neuler.org, xuwei5@...wei.com, liguozhu@...ilicon.com,
tiantao6@...ilicon.com, wanghuiqiang@...wei.com,
prime.zeng@...ilicon.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
guodong.xu@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/topology: fix the issue groups don't span
domain->span for NUMA diameter > 2
I did a rudimentary benchmark on the same 8-node Sun Fire X4600-M2, on top of todays 5.11.0-rc7-00002-ge0756cfc7d7c.
The test: building clean kernel with make -j64 after make clean and drop_caches.
While running clean kernel / 3 tries):
real 2m38.574s
user 46m18.387s
sys 6m8.724s
real 2m37.647s
user 46m34.171s
sys 6m11.993s
real 2m37.832s
user 46m34.910s
sys 6m12.013s
While running patched kernel:
real 2m40.072s
user 46m22.610s
sys 6m6.658s
for real time, seems to be 1.5s-2s slower out of 160s (noise?) User and system time are slightly less, on the other hand, so seems good to me.
--
Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists