Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752218Ab3GICwt (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 22:52:49 -0400 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.7]:45376 "EHLO e28smtp07.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751564Ab3GICws (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 22:52:48 -0400 Message-ID: <51DB7AF7.50708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:52:39 +0800 From: Michael Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Davidlohr Bueso CC: Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Alex Shi , Namhyung Kim , Paul Turner , Andrew Morton , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , Ram Pai Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine References: <51D29EE5.8080307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130704091339.GK18898@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> <51D5428D.7080805@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1372934013.9046.16.camel@marge.simpson.net> <51D633DB.5010508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1372997318.7315.23.camel@marge.simpson.net> <51D64C84.5080100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1373002865.8318.11.camel@marge.simpson.net> <51D664B9.7010407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1373179405.19316.41.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130708082106.GW23916@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1373309998.1744.3.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <51DB75D4.6050302@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1373337407.1744.20.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <1373337407.1744.20.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13070902-8878-0000-0000-000007DDE517 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1059 Lines: 35 On 07/09/2013 10:36 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: [snip] >> 2. is the 3.10-rc5 in image also disabled the hyperthreading? > > Yes, I happened to have data already collected for 3.10-rc5. While the > runs with this patch was with -rc7, unless there was some performance > related commit I missed, I don't think the performance difference was > because of that. > >> 3. is the v3 patch set show the same issue? > > Uhmmm shoot, I didn't realize there was a v3, sorry about that. > > /me takes another look at the thread. V3 will reduce the overhead, should make things better, especially when workload is high and platform is big (your box is really what I desired ;-), honestly). And if it is possible, comparison based on the same basement will be better :) Regards, Michael Wang > > Thanks, > Davidlohr > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/