Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:59:01 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
Cc:     jiangshanlai@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, joshdon@google.com, brho@google.com,
        briannorris@chromium.org, nhuck@google.com, agk@redhat.com,
        snitzer@kernel.org, void@manifault.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v1 wq/for-6.5] workqueue: Improve unbound workqueue
 execution locality
Message-ID: <ZNH1xQBWIBNvHGZB@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230519001709.2563-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <ZNGYxBCtaMclAl8x@slm.duckdns.org>
 <94da0dc0-a30d-33d5-b3d5-784bbd59c549@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94da0dc0-a30d-33d5-b3d5-784bbd59c549@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 08:28:53AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> > Assuming that the tbench difference was a testing artifact, I'm applying the
> > patchset to wq/for-6.6 so that it can receive wider testing. Prateek, I'd
> > really appreciate if you could repeat the test and see whether the
> > difference persists.
> 
> Sure. I'll retest with for-6.6 branch. Will post the results here once the
> tests are done. I'll repeat the same - test with the defaults and the ones
> that show any difference in results, I'll rerun them with various affinity
> scopes.

I think it'd be helpful to pick one benchmark setup which shows clear
difference and repeat it multiple times while taking measures to avoid
systemic biases (e.g. instead of running all of control followed by all of
test, separate them into several segments and interleave them).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun