[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KmS79-0003mo-5j@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:49:31 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: rjw@...k.pl (Rafael J. Wysocki)
Cc: johnpol@....mipt.ru, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
protasnb@...il.com, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
cl@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc8-git7: Reported regressions from 2.6.26
Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11308
>> > Subject : tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28
>> > Submitter : Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
>> > Date : 2008-08-11 18:36 (55 days old)
>> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121847986119495&w=4
>> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122125737421332&w=4
>>
>> Just for the reference, this one regresses from the 2.6.23.
>
> Still, tbench results from 2.6.26 are better than from 2.6.27-rc.
> That's why it's still on the list, but if you think that's not relevant, please
> let me know and I'll drop it.
Note that 2.6.27 beats 2.6.26 by 30% with bulk traffic over
loopback as opposed to the small packets sent by tbench where
I saw a 5% drop in performance on my machine.
So I'm not sure whether this should really be classified as
a regression if we limit ourselves to the changes between 26
and 27.
The changes prior to 26 seem to be more significant.
Chyeers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists