Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946814AbdDYNpN (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:45:13 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:38308 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946626AbdDYNpC (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:45:02 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:44:48 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Lofstedt, Marta" Cc: "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com" , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , "martin.peres@linux.intel.com" , "pasha.tatashin@oracle.com" , "daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes Message-ID: <20170425134448.hmhsnq2nnlz6jbci@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170421145756.305735607@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 565 Lines: 12 On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +0000, Lofstedt, Marta wrote: > Hi Peterz, > > I tested your patch-set on the same Core2 machine as where we discovered the regression. > With the tsc=unstable boot param that passrate has improved significantly; 350 fails -> 15 fails. So is that the same as before, or still worse? I don't really have a handle on what your benchmark is here, nor what how 'good' is defined. If its still worse than before, I'm completely confused. Because with "tsc=unstable" the patch you fingered is a complete no-op (__gtod_offset == 0).