On 11/22/2013 02:37 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> latest kernel 527d1511310a89+ this patchset
> hackbench -T -g 10 -f 40
> 23.25" 21.7"
> 23.16" 19.99"
> 24.24" 21.53"
>
On 11/26/2013 09:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Ok, bad copy-paste, the third test run results with the patchset is wrong.
>
> hackbench -P -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
> 38.938 39.585
> 39.363 39.008
> 39.340 38.954
>
On 11/26/2013 01:52 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Here the new results with your patchset + patch #5
I have some issues with perf for the moment, so I will fix it up and
send the result after.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
The result is pretty good!, thread/pipe
On 11/26/2013 01:52 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Here the new results with your patchset + patch #5
I have some issues with perf for the moment, so I will fix it up and
send the result after.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
The result is pretty good!, thread/pipe
On 11/26/2013 08:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>
> Here the new results with your patchset + patch #5
>
> I have some issues with perf for the moment, so I will fix it up and
> send the result after.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
The result is pretty good!, thread/pipe performance has a slight little
On 11/24/2013 06:29 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
27.604
On 11/24/2013 06:29 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
27.604
On 11/26/2013 08:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Here the new results with your patchset + patch #5
I have some issues with perf for the moment, so I will fix it up and
send the result after.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
The result is pretty good!, thread/pipe performance has a slight little
drop,
On 11/26/2013 01:52 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Here the new results with your patchset + patch #5
I have some issues with perf for the moment, so I will fix it up and
send the result after.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
The result is pretty good!, thread/pipe
On 11/26/2013 01:52 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/26/2013 08:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Here the new results with your patchset + patch #5
I have some issues with perf for the moment, so I will fix it up and
send the result after.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
The result is pretty good!, thread/pipe
On 11/26/2013 09:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Ok, bad copy-paste, the third test run results with the patchset is wrong.
hackbench -P -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
38.938 39.585
39.363 39.008
39.340 38.954
38.909
On 11/22/2013 02:37 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
latest kernel 527d1511310a89+ this patchset
hackbench -T -g 10 -f 40
23.25 21.7
23.16 19.99
24.24 21.53
hackbench -p
On 11/25/2013 04:36 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 01:58 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
>>> following result:
>>>
>>> kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / +
On 11/25/2013 01:58 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
27.604
On 11/25/2013 01:58 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
27.604
On 11/25/2013 04:36 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 11/25/2013 01:58 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
> following result:
>
> kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
>
> hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
> 27.604 38.556
Hi Daniel, would
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
27.604 38.556
Hi Daniel, would you like
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
> following result:
>
> kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
>
> hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
> 27.604 38.556
Wondering if the
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> The git tree for this patchset at:
>> g...@github.com:alexshi/power-scheduling.git no-load-idx
>> Since Fengguang had included this tree into his kernel testing system.
>> and I haven't get a regression report until now. I suppose it is fine
>>
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
The git tree for this patchset at:
g...@github.com:alexshi/power-scheduling.git no-load-idx
Since Fengguang had included this tree into his kernel testing system.
and I haven't get a regression report until now. I suppose it is fine
for x86
On 11/22/2013 08:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Hi Alex,
I tried on my Xeon server (2 x 4 cores) your patchset and got the
following result:
kernel a5d6e63323fe7799eb0e6 / + patchset
hackbench -T -s 4096 -l 1000 -g 10 -f 40
27.604 38.556
Wondering if the following
On 11/22/2013 07:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
The cpu_load decays on time according past cpu load of rq. New sched_avg decays
on tasks' load of time. Now we has 2 kind decay for cpu_load. That is a kind of
redundancy. And increase the system load in sched_tick etc.
This patch trying to remove the
On 11/22/2013 07:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
The cpu_load decays on time according past cpu load of rq. New sched_avg decays
on tasks' load of time. Now we has 2 kind decay for cpu_load. That is a kind of
redundancy. And increase the system load in sched_tick etc.
This patch trying to remove the
The cpu_load decays on time according past cpu load of rq. New sched_avg decays
on tasks' load of time. Now we has 2 kind decay for cpu_load. That is a kind of
redundancy. And increase the system load in sched_tick etc.
This patch trying to remove the cpu_load decay. And fixed a nohz_full bug
The cpu_load decays on time according past cpu load of rq. New sched_avg decays
on tasks' load of time. Now we has 2 kind decay for cpu_load. That is a kind of
redundancy. And increase the system load in sched_tick etc.
This patch trying to remove the cpu_load decay. And fixed a nohz_full bug
26 matches
Mail list logo
