From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [Bug #14950] tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:34:19 +0100 Message-ID: <201003222234.19722.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1269240110.13618.26.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1269240110.13618.26.camel-YqMYhexLQo1vAv1Ojkdn7Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Maciej Rutecki , Lin Ming , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar On Monday 22 March 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:30 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let the tracking team know (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14950 > > Subject : tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 > > Submitter : Lin Ming > > Date : 2009-12-25 11:11 (87 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126174044213172&w=4 > > This needs retest in tip. I submitted some patchlets to shave a few > cycles, with which my box (fwtw) shows zero regression 2.6.31 -> > tip.today, whereas there was nothing but regression of up to ~6% in > between, magnitude seemingly depending on phase-of-moon. Actually, > patched tip at submission time was a fraction above 31 throughput. > Retesting today, it's a fraction of a percent below again (tbench is > annoyingly jittery). > > Hopefully, this tbench regression is on it's way to retirement. Thanks for the update. Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756540Ab0CVVbO (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:31:14 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:36571 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754693Ab0CVVbM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:31:12 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [Bug #14950] tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:34:19 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.34-rc2-rjw; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Maciej Rutecki , Lin Ming , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar References: <1269240110.13618.26.camel@marge.simson.net> In-Reply-To: <1269240110.13618.26.camel@marge.simson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003222234.19722.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 22 March 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:30 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let the tracking team know (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14950 > > Subject : tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 > > Submitter : Lin Ming > > Date : 2009-12-25 11:11 (87 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126174044213172&w=4 > > This needs retest in tip. I submitted some patchlets to shave a few > cycles, with which my box (fwtw) shows zero regression 2.6.31 -> > tip.today, whereas there was nothing but regression of up to ~6% in > between, magnitude seemingly depending on phase-of-moon. Actually, > patched tip at submission time was a fraction above 31 throughput. > Retesting today, it's a fraction of a percent below again (tbench is > annoyingly jittery). > > Hopefully, this tbench regression is on it's way to retirement. Thanks for the update. Rafael