From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751559AbdB1AeJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:34:09 -0500 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:14853 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751285AbdB1AeH (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:34:07 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,216,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="1102975075" From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Vincent Guittot Cc: "Huang\, Ying" , Dietmar Eggemann , Stephen Rothwell , Andi Kleen , Tim Chen , Peter Zijlstra , LKP , LKML , Dave Hansen , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% regression References: <87zik1ya5g.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <878trk8urx.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20161222151215.GA23448@linaro.org> <87r34swjqg.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20170103113759.GA30094@linaro.org> <87a8b7o72c.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <87d1ecs1ud.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:33:27 +0800 In-Reply-To: (Vincent Guittot's message of "Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:44:02 +0100") Message-ID: <87tw7ff92g.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Vincent Guittot writes: > Hi Ying, > > On 21 February 2017 at 03:40, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Hi, Vincent, >> >> Vincent Guittot writes: >> > > [snip] > >>>> >>>> Here is the test result, >>>> >>>> ========================================================================================= >>>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/freq/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/samples/tbox_group/test/testcase: >>>> gcc-6/powersave/20/x86_64-rhel-7.2/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/6000ss/lkp-hsw-d01/cache/ftq >>>> >>>> commit: >>>> 4e5160766fcc9f41bbd38bac11f92dce993644aa: first bad commit >>>> 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6ddf1fd685692d49: parent of first bad commit >>>> b524060933c546fd2410c5a09360ba23a0fef846: with fix patch above >>>> >>>> 4e5160766fcc9f41 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6d b524060933c546fd2410c5a093 >>>> ---------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- >>>> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev >>>> \ | \ | \ >>>> 3463 ± 10% -61.4% 1335 ± 17% -3.0% 3359 ± 2% ftq.noise.50% >>>> 1116 ± 23% -73.7% 293.90 ± 30% -23.8% 850.69 ± 17% ftq.noise.75% >>> >>> To be honest, I was expecting at least the same level of improvement >>> as the previous patch if not better but i was not expecting worse >>> results >> >> What's your next plan for this regression? At least your previous patch >> could recover part of it. > > I haven't been able to find better fix than the previous patch so i'm > going to send a clean version with proper commit message Great to know this. Could you keep me posted? Best Regards, Huang, Ying > Regards, > Vincent > >> >> Best Regards, >> Huang, Ying