[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mttqt5jc.mognet@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 21:42:31 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: 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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 22/04/21 10:55, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> I'll go find myself some other x86 box and dig into it;
> I'd rather not leave this hanging for too long.
So I found myself a dual-socket Xeon Gold 5120 @ 2.20GHz (64 CPUs) and
*there* I get a somewhat consistent ~-6% regression. As I'm suspecting
cacheline shenanigans, I also ran that with Peter's recent
kthread_is_per_cpu() change, and that brings it down to ~-3%
I'll leave it at here for today, but at least that's something I can work
with.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists