Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753554Ab3GOFOS (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:14:18 -0400 Received: from e23smtp03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.145]:49496 "EHLO e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752760Ab3GOFOQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:14:16 -0400 Message-ID: <51E38517.5040300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:13:59 +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> <51DB7AF7.50708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <51DB7AF7.50708@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13071505-6102-0000-0000-000003DACA2B Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1754 Lines: 56 Hi, Davidlohr On 07/09/2013 10:52 AM, Michael Wang wrote: > 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 :) I have done some tests with reaim high_systime workfile, and I could not find regression on my box (the tool itself has some issue, but I got the results), v3 works well. I suppose the issue have been addressed, but please let us know if v3 also show regression on your box, we could try to solve the problem ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > > 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/ > -- 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/