[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zfvtg2mh.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 18:15:34 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@....com>, Ankur Arora
<ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org, willy@...radead.org,
mgorman@...e.de, jpoimboe@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, bristot@...nel.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com,
mattst88@...il.com, krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
David.Laight@...LAB.COM, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com,
jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling
On Wed, Feb 21 2024 at 17:53, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Configuration tested.
> a) Base kernel (6.7),
Which scheduling model is the baseline using?
> b) patched with PREEMPT_AUTO voluntary preemption.
> c) patched with PREEMPT_DYNAMIC voluntary preemption.
>
> Workloads I tested and their %gain,
> case b case c
> NAS +2.7 +1.9
> Hashjoin, +0 +0
> XSBench +1.7 +0
> Graph500, -6 +0
The Graph500 stands out. Needs some analysis.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists