[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c25eda1d0d38fc956bf9f0ba73e6191dcad36dd.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 03:45:19 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kprateek.nayak@....com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 14:05 -0500, Phil Auld wrote:
>
> Well that worked pretty well. It actually makes DELAY_DEQUEUE a litte better
> than NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE
>
> DELAY_DEQUEUE ~595MB/s
> NO_DELAY_DEQUEUE ~581MB/s
Hrmph, not the expected result, but sharp stick's mission was to
confirm/deny that delta's relevance, so job well done.. kindling.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists