From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752976Ab3KWGfN (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:35:13 -0500 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:49239 "EHLO mout.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750759Ab3KWGfK (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:35:10 -0500 Message-ID: <1385188503.5296.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] futex: Wakeup optimizations From: Mike Galbraith To: Darren Hart Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jeffm@suse.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, scott.norton@hp.com, tom.vaden@hp.com, aswin@hp.com, Waiman.Long@hp.com, jason.low2@hp.com Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 07:35:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1385186145.29354.175.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1385168197-8612-1-git-send-email-davidlohr@hp.com> <1385186145.29354.175.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:EGZ5H1ZD/LsFWxWh7Bwzy8kOgwZ0ZDRwejjlIs3xMHokm+Ex1Fi sksHcz8/lSZ8p/wq1PUG6HcUxpgKa4w6pWmTGkq1sJZWTYkggJt10Wpm1GyZ0WdAamg5rg5 y0WnNyRrJWToAfANU/TjXhc9Hc3n55W4+A2PHRx78pIKjkJhKGjEqb9423t6PFv80pEFmoo BjycLCw8dG/fR7MjngXKg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 21:55 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > This patchset has also been tested on smaller systems for a variety of > > benchmarks, including java workloads, kernel builds and custom bang-the-hell-out-of > > hb locks programs. So far, no functional or performance regressions have been seen. > > Furthermore, no issues were found when running the different tests in the futextest > > suite: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dvhart/futextest.git/ > > Excellent. Would you be able to contribute any of these (C only please) > to the stress test group? FWIW, I plugged this series into an rt kernel (extra raciness) and beat it up a bit on a 64 core box too. Nothing fell out, nor did futextest numbers change outside variance (poor box has 8 whole gig ram, single numa node, so kinda crippled/wimpy, and not good box for benchmarking). What concerned me most about the series was 5/5.. looks like a great idea to me, but the original thread did not have a happy ending. -Mike