From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
lkp@01.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sched/fair] 53d3bc773e: hackbench.throughput -32.9% regression
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:41:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160531124151.GK3190@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87eg8id3s3.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:34:36PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Ingo,
>
> Part of the regression has been recovered in v4.7-rc1 from -32.9% to
> -9.8%. But there is still some regression. Is it possible for fully
> restore it?
after much searching on how you guys run hackbench... I figured
something like:
perf bench sched messaging -g 20 --thread -l 60000
on my IVB-EP (2*10*2) is similar to your IVT thing.
And running something like:
for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ; do echo performance > $i ; done
perf stat --null --repeat 10 -- perf bench sched messaging -g 20 --thread -l 60000 | grep "seconds time elapsed"
gets me:
v4.6:
36.786914089 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.49% )
37.054017355 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.05% )
origin/master (v4.7-rc1-ish):
34.757435264 seconds time elapsed ( +- 3.34% )
35.396252515 seconds time elapsed ( +- 3.38% )
Which doesn't show a regression between v4.6 and HEAD; in fact it shows
an improvement.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-31 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-31 8:20 [lkp] [sched/fair] 53d3bc773e: hackbench.throughput -32.9% regression kernel test robot
2016-05-31 8:34 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-05-31 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-01 5:00 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-01 8:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-01 8:53 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-01 9:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-02 0:28 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-02 0:44 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160531124151.GK3190@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox