[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YIAUfFXFFY9Jggra@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:03:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>, 0day robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com, zhengjun.xing@...el.com,
Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@...eaurora.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [sched/fair] 38ac256d1c: stress-ng.vm-segv.ops_per_sec -13.8%
regression
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> o 2-socket Xeon E5-2690 (x86, 40 cores)
>
> and found at worse a -0.3% regression and at best a 2% improvement. I know
> that x86 box is somewhat ancient, but it's been my go-to "have I broken
> x86?" test victim for a while :-)
It happens that my main test-box is an E5-2680. I've got a slightly more
modern one too, but that boots like treacle so I end up using the IVB-EP
most :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists