From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Luca Zini <luca.zini@gmail.com>
Cc: aagaande@gmail.com, rdelcueto@hotmail.com, mingo@elte.hu,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
Subject: Re: scheduler vs hardware? (was Re: another i7 (linux) bug?)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:19:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1264144758.8074.22.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100121215438.GK17684@ldl.fc.hp.com>
> if I run a cpu intensive process with the lowest priority (19
> from man nice) I obtain much better performance that with the
> highest priority available (-20 from man nice).
>
> For example the same file is processed by lame in 8.7 seconds
> at the lowest priority, and in 12 seconds at the highest
> priority. Before posting a bug I wold like to understand if
> this is a problem related to the i7 mobile (my processor is a
> i7 Q720).
>
> As far as I tested on the same laptop series (dell studio 15),
> with the same kernel this problem does not exists.
So you only see this on the i7. That's odd. Can you try 33-rc5?
Posting a reliable reproducer would be nice. It'd also be nice to see
what all is running when you see this, and where.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-22 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <201001211258.23499.luca.zini@gmail.com>
2010-01-21 21:54 ` scheduler vs hardware? (was Re: another i7 (linux) bug?) Alex Chiang
2010-01-22 7:19 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2010-01-22 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-22 9:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-01-22 9:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-01-22 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-22 11:22 ` Luca Zini
2010-01-22 15:58 ` Chris Friesen
2010-01-23 9:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-01-22 20:15 ` Luca Zini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1264144758.8074.22.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aagaande@gmail.com \
--cc=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.zini@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rdelcueto@hotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.