* Re: [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score [not found] <874me6jql0.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> @ 2016-01-22 2:48 ` Davidlohr Bueso 2016-01-25 1:23 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Davidlohr Bueso @ 2016-01-22 2:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernel test robot Cc: Ding Tianhong, lkp, LKML, Waiman Long, Tim Chen, Jason Low, Will Deacon, Thomas Gleixner, Paul E. McKenney, Linus Torvalds, Peter Zijlstra, Ingo Molnar, 0day robot 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. 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. All this does is hurt lkml-searchability. Thanks, Davidlohr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [LKP] [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score 2016-01-22 2:48 ` [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score Davidlohr Bueso @ 2016-01-25 1:23 ` Huang, Ying 2016-01-25 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Huang, Ying @ 2016-01-25 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Waiman Long, Peter Zijlstra, lkp, Will Deacon, LKML, Paul E. McKenney, Linus Torvalds, Ingo Molnar, Ding Tianhong, Thomas Gleixner, fengguang.wu, Tim Chen, Jason Low 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [LKP] [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score 2016-01-25 1:23 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying @ 2016-01-25 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2016-01-25 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Huang, Ying Cc: Davidlohr Bueso, Waiman Long, Peter Zijlstra, lkp, Will Deacon, LKML, Linus Torvalds, Ingo Molnar, Ding Tianhong, Thomas Gleixner, fengguang.wu, Tim Chen, Jason Low On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:23:59AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > 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. For me, the 0day reports on LKML postings have been quite helpful. They give the submitter immediate feedback on a number of issues, thus reducing the number of rounds of review. Thanx, Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-25 6:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <874me6jql0.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
2016-01-22 2:48 ` [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25 1:23 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-01-25 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).