On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Please test..
>
> Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> applied.
>
> It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
> process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
> out:
This turned out to be a false positive; your patch improves things as
far as I can see.
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Please test..
> >
> > Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> > applied.
> >
> > It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
> > process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
> > out:
>
> This turned out to be a false positive; your patch improves things as
> far as I can see.
Hooray, I'll move it to a part of the queue intended for merging.
Thanks!
On 06/06/2017 05:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please test..
>>>
>>> Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
>>> applied.
>>>
>>> It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
>>> process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
>>> out:
>>
>> This turned out to be a false positive; your patch improves things as
>> far as I can see.
>
> Hooray, I'll move it to a part of the queue intended for merging.
It's a little late, but Roman Gushchin helped get some runs of this with
our production workload. The patch is every so slightly better.
Thanks!
-chris