From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964989AbWALC2N (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:28:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932676AbWALC2M (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:28:12 -0500 Received: from mail27.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.168]:55757 "EHLO mail27.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932678AbWALC2L (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:28:11 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Peter Williams Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:27:48 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar References: <43C45BDC.1050402@google.com> <200601121236.07522.kernel@kolivas.org> <43C5BD8F.3000307@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <43C5BD8F.3000307@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601121327.48640.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:23 pm, Peter Williams wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:29 pm, Peter Williams wrote: > >>Con Kolivas wrote: > >>>This is a shot in the dark. We haven't confirmed 1. there is a problem > >>> 2. that this is the problem nor 3. that this patch will fix the > >>> problem. > >> > >>I disagree. I think that there is a clear mistake in my original patch > >>that this patch fixes. > > > > I agree with you on that. The real concern is that we were just about to > > push it upstream. So where does this leave us? I propose we delay > > merging the "improved smp nice handling" patch into mainline pending your > > further changes. > > I think that they're already in 2.6.15 minus my "move load not tasks" > modification which I was expecting to go into 2.6.16. Is that what you > meant? Yes, akpm included your patch under the name of something like "improved smp nice handling". My smp nice patches went into mainline 2.6.15 and were extensively tested for performance regressions. This is about your move load not tasks modification which is the patch in question that might be affecting performance. Con > If so I think this is a small and obvious fix that shouldn't delay the > merging of "move load not tasks" into the mainline. But it's not my call. > > Peter