From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: Preemptibility -v4 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:42:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1284450168.2275.452.camel@laptop> References: <20100828141637.421594670@chello.nl> <1284442585.26157.8150.camel@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1284442585.26157.8150.camel@debian> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Alex,Shi" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Chen, Tim C" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 13:36 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote: > Peter: > We tested your tree base on 2.6.36-rc3 kernel. The testing covered on > Core2 2P, NHM-EP/WSM-EP machines, no clear performance regression found > on your patch compare to 36-rc3, and also no clear improvements on our > benchmarks. > > The benchmarks are listed in the following website, and plus some of > FFSB/FIO scenarios. http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/ Thanks, much appreciated!! Hopefully we'll get sparc64 fixed up soon and can talk about merging this. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:39363 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751683Ab0INHmv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:42:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: Preemptibility -v4 From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <1284442585.26157.8150.camel@debian> References: <20100828141637.421594670@chello.nl> <1284442585.26157.8150.camel@debian> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:42:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1284450168.2275.452.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Alex,Shi" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Chen, Tim C" Message-ID: <20100914074248.ijJJ7a2rRGp79YCGo97qvNYCEt-Vw6d_qPVrv6pCYZ0@z> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 13:36 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote: > Peter: > We tested your tree base on 2.6.36-rc3 kernel. The testing covered on > Core2 2P, NHM-EP/WSM-EP machines, no clear performance regression found > on your patch compare to 36-rc3, and also no clear improvements on our > benchmarks. > > The benchmarks are listed in the following website, and plus some of > FFSB/FIO scenarios. http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/ Thanks, much appreciated!! Hopefully we'll get sparc64 fixed up soon and can talk about merging this.