On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 17:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 02:11 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Sunday 05 October 2008 04:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > > of recent regressions. > > > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > > from 2.6.26. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > > > (either way). > > > > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11207 > > > Subject : VolanoMark regression with 2.6.27-rc1 > > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date : 2008-07-31 3:20 (66 days old) > > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121747464114335&w=4 > > > Handled-By : Zhang, Yanmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Miao Xie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Curious: what's happening with this one, handlers? Any progress being made? > > Sadly not much, I can't seem to reproduce :-( The regression is bigger with more cpu.
> > Yanmin, does the wakeup patch I did for oltp help this workload any? > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122194673932703&w=4 I tested it against 2.6.29-rc9 on 8-core stoakley and 16-core tigerton. volanoMark chatroom number is default 10. Basically, comparing with pure 2.6.27-rc9, the patched kernel's result has about 2% regression. Group scheduling is enabled. -yanmin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
