On 01/24/2013 06:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 17:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/24/2013 05:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 17:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 05:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >> Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
> >
> > Maybe v3 can try to not waste so much
On 01/24/2013 05:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
>
> Maybe v3 can try to not waste so much ram on affine map?
Yeah, that has been a question in my mind at very
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
Maybe v3 can try to not waste so much ram on affine map?
Even better would be if it could just go away, along with relic of the
bad old days wake_affine(), and we
On 01/24/2013 03:47 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 15:15 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/24/2013 02:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
On 01/24/2013 06:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 17:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/24/2013 05:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
Maybe v3 can
On 01/24/2013 03:47 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 15:15 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/24/2013 02:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
regression, and I've
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
Maybe v3 can try to not waste so much ram on affine map?
Even better would be if it could just go away, along with relic of the
bad old days wake_affine(), and we
On 01/24/2013 05:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
Maybe v3 can try to not waste so much ram on affine map?
Yeah, that has been a question in my mind at very
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 17:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/24/2013 05:07 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Now it's time to work on v3 I think, let's see what we could get this time.
Maybe v3 can try to not waste so much ram on affine
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 15:15 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 02:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >> I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
> >> regression, and I've just tested on a power server
On 01/24/2013 02:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
>> regression, and I've just tested on a power server with 64 cpu, also
>> failed to reproduce the issue (not compared
On 01/24/2013 02:01 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 05:32 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
>> ---
>> include/linux/topology.h |6 ++---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 41 ++---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 52
>>
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
> regression, and I've just tested on a power server with 64 cpu, also
> failed to reproduce the issue (not compared with virgin yet, but can't
> see collapse).
I'm not
On 01/23/2013 05:32 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
> ---
> include/linux/topology.h |6 ++---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 41 ++---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 52
> +--
> 3 files changed, 70 insertions(+),
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:18 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > >> On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >>> On Wed,
On 01/23/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013
On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
> Abbreviated test run:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >>> Abbreviated test run:
> >>> Tasksjobs/min jti jobs/min/task
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>>> Abbreviated test run:
>>> Tasksjobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
>>> 640 158044.01 81 246.9438 24.54
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Abbreviated test run:
> > Tasksjobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
> > 640 158044.01 81 246.9438 24.54577.66 Wed Jan 23
> > 07:14:33 2013
> > 1280
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Abbreviated test run:
Tasksjobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
640 158044.01 81 246.9438 24.54577.66 Wed Jan 23
07:14:33 2013
128050434.33
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Abbreviated test run:
Tasksjobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
640 158044.01 81 246.9438 24.54577.66 Wed
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Abbreviated test run:
Tasksjobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Abbreviated test run:
Tasksjobs/min
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike
On 01/23/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 15:10 +0800, Michael
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:18 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 17:00 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:49 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 16:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 04:20 PM, Mike
On 01/23/2013 05:32 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
---
include/linux/topology.h |6 ++---
kernel/sched/core.c | 41 ++---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 52
+--
3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 29
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
regression, and I've just tested on a power server with 64 cpu, also
failed to reproduce the issue (not compared with virgin yet, but can't
see collapse).
I'm not
On 01/24/2013 02:01 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 05:32 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
---
include/linux/topology.h |6 ++---
kernel/sched/core.c | 41 ++---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 52
On 01/24/2013 02:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
regression, and I've just tested on a power server with 64 cpu, also
failed to reproduce the issue (not compared with virgin
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 15:15 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/24/2013 02:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
I've enabled WAKE flag on my box like you did, but still can't see
regression, and I've just tested on a power server with 64 cpu,
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 13:09 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/23/2013 12:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>>> Another thing that wants fixing: root can set flags for _existing_
>>> domains any way he likes,
>>
>> Can he? on running time changing
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 13:09 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 12:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Another thing that wants fixing: root can set flags for _existing_
> > domains any way he likes,
>
> Can he? on running time changing the domain flags? I do remember I used to
> send out
On 01/23/2013 12:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:44 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/22/2013 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 11:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I suppose it's A, so my logical is:
> >> 1. find idle cpu in prev domain.
> >> 2. if failed and affine, find idle cpu in current domain.
> >
> > Hm. If cpu and prev_cpu are cache affine,
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:44 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >> What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
> >> path, should we check it? ;-)
> >
> > [
On 01/22/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/22/2013 04:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> ...
>
> That was with your change backed out, and the q/d below applied.
So that change will help to solve the
On 01/22/2013 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
>> path, should we check it? ;-)
>
> [1.232249] Brought up 40 CPUs
> [1.236003] smpboot: Total of 40
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
> path, should we check it? ;-)
[1.232249] Brought up 40 CPUs
[1.236003] smpboot: Total of 40 processors activated (180873.90 BogoMIPS)
[1.244744] CPU0
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 04:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
> > ...
> >>>
> >>> That was with your change backed out, and the q/d below applied.
> >>
> >> So that change will help to solve the issue? good to know :)
> >>
> >> But it will invoke
On 01/22/2013 04:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
> ...
>>>
>>> That was with your change backed out, and the q/d below applied.
>>
>> So that change will help to solve the issue? good to know :)
>>
>> But it will invoke wake_affine() with out any delay, the benefit
>> of the patch set will be
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:43 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/21/2013
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:43 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike
On 01/22/2013 04:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
...
That was with your change backed out, and the q/d below applied.
So that change will help to solve the issue? good to know :)
But it will invoke wake_affine() with out any delay, the benefit
of the patch set will be reduced a lot...
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/22/2013 04:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
...
That was with your change backed out, and the q/d below applied.
So that change will help to solve the issue? good to know :)
But it will invoke wake_affine() with out
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
path, should we check it? ;-)
[1.232249] Brought up 40 CPUs
[1.236003] smpboot: Total of 40 processors activated (180873.90 BogoMIPS)
[1.244744] CPU0
On 01/22/2013 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
path, should we check it? ;-)
[1.232249] Brought up 40 CPUs
[1.236003] smpboot: Total of 40 processors
On 01/22/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/22/2013 04:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
...
That was with your change backed out, and the q/d below applied.
So that change will help to solve the issue? good to know :)
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:44 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/22/2013 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
path, should we check it? ;-)
[1.232249] Brought up
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 11:01 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/22/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
I suppose it's A, so my logical is:
1. find idle cpu in prev domain.
2. if failed and affine, find idle cpu in current domain.
Hm. If cpu and prev_cpu are cache affine, you already
On 01/23/2013 12:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 10:44 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/22/2013 10:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:56 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
What about this patch? May be the wrong map is the killer on balance
path, should we
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 13:09 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 12:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Another thing that wants fixing: root can set flags for _existing_
domains any way he likes,
Can he? on running time changing the domain flags? I do remember I used to
send out some
On 01/23/2013 02:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 13:09 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/23/2013 12:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Another thing that wants fixing: root can set flags for _existing_
domains any way he likes,
Can he? on running time changing the domain
On 01/21/2013 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 10:44 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > >> On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >>> On Mon,
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon,
On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
> May be we
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 16:46 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 04:26 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:34 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >>>
> That
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >>> May be we could try change this back to the old way later,
On 01/21/2013 04:26 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:34 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:34 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >> That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
> >> your datapoint file?
> >
> > Yup, I do not
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:34 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
your datapoint file?
Yup, I do not touch the
On 01/21/2013 04:26 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:34 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
your datapoint
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
May be we could try change this back to the old way later, after the aim
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 16:46 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 04:26 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:34 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
That seems like the default
On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
May be we could try change this
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 10:44 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at
On 01/21/2013 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 17:22 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 05:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 15:45 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>>> May be we could try change this back to the old way later, after the aim
>>> 7 test on my server.
>>
>> Yeah, something funny
On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
>> your datapoint file?
>
> Yup, I do not touch the workfile. Datapoints is what you see in the
> tabulated
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > May be we could try change this back to the old way later, after the aim
> > 7 test on my server.
>
> Yeah, something funny is going on.
Never entering balance path kills the
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
> your datapoint file?
Yup, I do not touch the workfile. Datapoints is what you see in the
tabulated result...
1
1
1
5
5
5
10
10
10
...
so it does three
On 01/21/2013 12:38 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 10:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 10:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> Hi, Mike
> >>
> >> I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
> >> perform better, please do let me know
On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Mike
>>
>> I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
>> perform better, please do let me know if it still cause issues on your
>> arm7 machine.
>
> s/arm7/aim7
On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
perform better, please do let me know if it still cause issues on your
arm7 machine.
s/arm7/aim7
Someone
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 10:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
perform better, please do let me know if it still
On 01/21/2013 12:38 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 10:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/20/2013 12:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
perform
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
your datapoint file?
Yup, I do not touch the workfile. Datapoints is what you see in the
tabulated result...
1
1
1
5
5
5
10
10
10
...
so it does three consecutive
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
May be we could try change this back to the old way later, after the aim
7 test on my server.
Yeah, something funny is going on.
Never entering balance path kills the
On 01/21/2013 02:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
That seems like the default one, could you please show me the numbers in
your datapoint file?
Yup, I do not touch the workfile. Datapoints is what you see in the
tabulated result...
1
On 01/21/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 07:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:07 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
May be we could try change this back to the old way later, after the aim
7 test on my server.
Yeah, something funny is going on.
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Mike
>
> I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
> perform better, please do let me know if it still cause issues on your
> arm7 machine.
s/arm7/aim7
Someone swiped half of CPUs/ram, so the box is now 2 10
On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
perform better, please do let me know if it still cause issues on your
arm7 machine.
s/arm7/aim7
Someone swiped half of CPUs/ram, so the box is now 2 10 core
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
perform better, please do let me know if it still cause issues on your
arm7 machine.
Regards,
Michael Wang
On 01/14/2013 05:21 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>>
Hi, Mike
I've send out the v2, which I suppose it will fix the below BUG and
perform better, please do let me know if it still cause issues on your
arm7 machine.
Regards,
Michael Wang
On 01/14/2013 05:21 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Hm,
On 01/15/2013 12:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 11:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> hanks for the testing, could you please tell me which benchmark
>> generate these results?
>
> aim7, using the compute workfile, and a datapoints file containing
> $Tasks. multitask -nl -f
On 01/15/2013 12:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 11:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
hanks for the testing, could you please tell me which benchmark
generate these results?
aim7, using the compute workfile, and a datapoints file containing
$Tasks. multitask -nl -f will
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 11:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> hanks for the testing, could you please tell me which benchmark
> generate these results?
aim7, using the compute workfile, and a datapoints file containing
$Tasks. multitask -nl -f will prompt for the datapoints file. You'll
have to
On 01/14/2013 05:21 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>> Hm, low end takes a big hit.
>
> Bah, that's perturbations and knobs.
>
> aim7 compute, three individual runs + average
>
> Stock scheduler knobs..
>
> 3.8-wang
On 01/12/2013 04:01 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 17:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 12/27/2012 02:08 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> This patch set is trying to simplify the select_task_rq_fair() with
>>> schedule balance map.
>>>
>>> After get rid of the complex code and
On 01/11/2013 06:13 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Michael Wang writes:
>> Prev:
>> +-+-+---+
>> | 7484 MB | 32 | 42463 |
>> Post:
>> | 7483 MB | 32 | 44185 | +0.18%
> That should be +4.05%
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hm, low end takes a big hit.
Bah, that's perturbations and knobs.
aim7 compute, three individual runs + average
Stock scheduler knobs..
3.8-wangavg 3.8-virgin
avgvs
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 11:19 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Hm, low end takes a big hit.
Bah, that's perturbations and knobs.
aim7 compute, three individual runs + average
Stock scheduler knobs..
3.8-wangavg 3.8-virgin
avgvs
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
