On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:55, <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> You followed up mentioning this wasn't with master-next. I think there
> is a patch in -next which will help with the empty task spin so both
> together might get us back to more normal numbers.

As all of these patches are now in master, I re-ran the test with that
(209f89ab8ed51ac2867ca8f749336af1ee24ab25), but without including the
spinning task part, pressing ctrl-c just as it starts. The outcome is
9m42s, compared to 2m9s for the baseline
So the worst is fixed, but the slowdown is still noticeable.

Openembedded-core mailing list

Reply via email to