From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756484Ab3A0Khz (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:37:55 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:53718 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756426Ab3A0Khx (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 05:37:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:40:39 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Alex Shi Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling Message-ID: <20130127104039.GC8894@pd.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Alex Shi , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1358996820-23036-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130124094439.GB13463@pd.tnic> <51014E34.60309@intel.com> <510493E4.8060602@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <510493E4.8060602@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, > hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads > loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear > performance change found. Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions with the bunch of benchmarks. > I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, > found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever > with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving > policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change. I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit when saving power... Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --