Hi Peter, crap - I have done bisecting manually (not using git bisect) and I have probably done some mistake.
Commits (git checkout <commit>) for which I got BAD results: 2159197d66770ec01f75c93fb11dc66df81fd45b 6ecdd74962f246dfe8750b7bea481a1c0816315d Commits (git checkout <commit>) for which I got GOOD results: 21e96f88776deead303ecd30a17d1d7c2a1776e3 64b7aad5798478ffff52e110878ccaae4c3aaa34 e7904a28f5331c21d17af638cb477c83662e3cb6 I will try to use git bisect now.  Jirka On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:52:45AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> the performance regression has been caused by this commit >> >> ================================================= >> commit 6ecdd74962f246dfe8750b7bea481a1c0816315d >> Author: Yuyang Du <yuyang...@intel.com> >> Date: Tue Apr 5 12:12:26 2016 +0800 >> >> sched/fair: Generalize the load/util averages resolution definition >> ================================================= >> >> Could you please have a look? > > That patch looks like a NO-OP to me. > > In any case, the good news it that I can run the benchmark, the bad news > is that the patch you fingered doesn't appear to be it. > > > v4.60: > ./4.6.0/2016-Jun-22_11h11m07s.log:Score on xml.transform: 2007.18 ops/m > ./4.6.0/2016-Jun-22_11h11m07s.log:Score on xml.validation: 2999.44 ops/m > > tip/master: > ./4.7.0-rc4-00345-gf6e78bb/2016-Jun-22_11h30m27s.log:Score on xml.transform: > 1283.14 ops/m > ./4.7.0-rc4-00345-gf6e78bb/2016-Jun-22_11h30m27s.log:Score on xml.validation: > 2008.62 ops/m > > patch^1 > ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197/2016-Jun-22_12h38m50s.log:Score on xml.transform: > 1196.18 ops/m > ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197/2016-Jun-22_12h38m50s.log:Score on xml.validation: > 2055.11 ops/m > > patch^1 + patch > ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197-dirty/2016-Jun-22_12h55m43s.log:Score on > xml.transform: 1294.59 ops/m > ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197-dirty/2016-Jun-22_12h55m43s.log:Score on > xml.validation: 2140.02 ops/m > >
