From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:48:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160122024801.GA23224@linux-uzut.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874me6jql0.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 699 bytes --]
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
>FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
>https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Ding-Tianhong/locking-mutexes-don-t-spin-on-owner-when-wait-list-is-not-NULL/20160121-173317
>commit cb4bbc457bfed6194ffab1b10c7be73b3f16ca2d ("locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.")
I'm not sure why this would even be reported, as this patch has not been accepted
or acked or nothin', by anyone. In this particular case that raw performance drop
is because spinning is pretty much disabled by Ding's change. Totally expected for
the kind of workload unixbench triggers.
All this does is hurt lkml-searchability.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: kernel test robot <ying.huang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
lkp@01.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
0day robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:48:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160122024801.GA23224@linux-uzut.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874me6jql0.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
>FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
>https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Ding-Tianhong/locking-mutexes-don-t-spin-on-owner-when-wait-list-is-not-NULL/20160121-173317
>commit cb4bbc457bfed6194ffab1b10c7be73b3f16ca2d ("locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.")
I'm not sure why this would even be reported, as this patch has not been accepted
or acked or nothin', by anyone. In this particular case that raw performance drop
is because spinning is pretty much disabled by Ding's change. Totally expected for
the kind of workload unixbench triggers.
All this does is hurt lkml-searchability.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-22 2:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-22 2:27 [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score kernel test robot
2016-01-22 2:48 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2016-01-22 2:48 ` [lkp] " Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25 1:23 ` Huang, Ying
2016-01-25 1:23 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-01-25 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-25 6:05 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Paul E. McKenney
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=20160122024801.GA23224@linux-uzut.site \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/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.