Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756302AbZIRGy5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:54:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753296AbZIRGyr (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:54:47 -0400 Received: from mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.100.55]:57038 "EHLO mk-filter-4-a-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753056AbZIRGyq (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:54:46 -0400 X-Trace: 259489334/mk-filter-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com/B2C/$b2c-THROTTLED-DYNAMIC/b2c-CUSTOMER-DYNAMIC-IP/79.69.73.110/None/hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 79.69.73.110 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk X-SMTP-AUTH: X-MUA: X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEABvMskpPRUlu/2dsb2JhbACBUtJmhBwFgVg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,408,1249254000"; d="scan'208";a="259489334" Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:53:58 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@sister.anvils To: Andrew Morton cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Arjan van de Ven , Andi Kleen , "lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" Subject: Re: aim7 scalability issue on 4 socket machine In-Reply-To: <20090917195909.3a00ef83.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <1253179879.2606.37.camel@ymzhang> <1253180411.8497.1.camel@twins> <1253239339.2606.40.camel@ymzhang> <20090917195909.3a00ef83.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1448 Lines: 37 On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:02:19 +0800 "Zhang, Yanmin" wrote: > > > > > > So, Yanmin, please retest with http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/13/25 > > > and let us know if that works as well for you - thanks. > > I tested Lee's patch and it does fix the issue. Thanks for checking and reporting back, Yanmin. > > Do we think we should cook up something for -stable? Gosh, I laughed at Lee (sorry!) for suggesting it for -stable: is stable really for getting a better number out of a benchmark? I'd have thought the next release is the right place for that; but I've no problem if you guys and the stable guys agree it's appropriate. > > Either this is a regression or the workload is particularly obscure. I've not cross-checked descriptions, but assume Lee was actually testing on exactly the same kind of upcoming Nehalem as Yanmin, and that machine happens to have characteristics which show up badly here. > > aim7 is sufficiently non-obscure to make me wonder what's happened here? Not a regression, just the onward march of new hardware, I think. Could easily be other such things in other places with other tests. Hugh -- 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/