All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:23:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87io2iih8w.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160122024801.GA23224@linux-uzut.site>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:

> 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.

Sorry for bothering.  The purpose is FYI as in the original report
email.  We test patches posted to LKML, if we found some changes related
to the patch, we will send out a report.  Hope the reviewer could
take that as information for his/her review if the report isn't totally
nonsense.

> 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.

The report is just raw performance data, it still need people to explain
it.  Thanks a lot for your explanation.

> All this does is hurt lkml-searchability.

Sorry, I don't understand this.  You could still search the original
patch.  Could you explain a little?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list
> LKP(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, <lkp@01.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	fengguang.wu@intel.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 09:23:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87io2iih8w.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160122024801.GA23224@linux-uzut.site> (Davidlohr Bueso's message of "Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:48:01 -0800")

Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:

> 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.

Sorry for bothering.  The purpose is FYI as in the original report
email.  We test patches posted to LKML, if we found some changes related
to the patch, we will send out a report.  Hope the reviewer could
take that as information for his/her review if the report isn't totally
nonsense.

> 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.

The report is just raw performance data, it still need people to explain
it.  Thanks a lot for your explanation.

> All this does is hurt lkml-searchability.

Sorry, I don't understand this.  You could still search the original
patch.  Could you explain a little?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list
> LKP@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp

  reply	other threads:[~2016-01-25  1:23 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
2016-01-22  2:48   ` [lkp] " Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25  1:23   ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2016-01-25  1:23     ` [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=87io2iih8w.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
    --to=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --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.