RE: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes

> <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>; martin.pe...@linux.intel.com; > pasha.tatas...@oracle.com; daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +, Lofstedt, Marta wrote: > > Hi Peterz, > > > > I tes

RE: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes

; daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +, Lofstedt, Marta wrote: > > Hi Peterz, > > > > I tested your patch-set on the same Core2 machine as where we > discovered the regression. > >

Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +, 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

Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +, 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

RE: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes

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. BR, Marta > -Original Message- > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:pet...@infradead.org] >

RE: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes

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. BR, Marta > -Original Message- > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:pet...@infradead.org] >