On 06/06/2017 05:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Please test..
Results are still coming in but things do look better with your
On 06/06/2017 05:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Please test..
Results are still coming in but things do look better with your
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Please test..
> >
> > Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> > applied.
> >
>
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > Please test..
> >
> > Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> > applied.
> >
>
On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Please test..
>
> Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> applied.
>
> It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
> process
On Fri, 19 May, at 04:00:35PM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Please test..
>
> Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
> applied.
>
> It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
> process
On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Please test..
Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
applied.
It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
out:
On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Please test..
Results are still coming in but things do look better with your patch
applied.
It does look like there's a regression when running hackbench in
process mode and when the CPUs are not fully utilised, e.g. check this
out:
On 05/17/2017 06:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
-static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start, int
*wrapped)
-{
- next =
On 05/17/2017 06:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
-static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start, int
*wrapped)
-{
- next =
On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
>
> > -static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start,
> > int *wrapped)
> > -{
>
> >
On Wed, 17 May, at 12:53:50PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
>
> > -static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start,
> > int *wrapped)
> > -{
>
> >
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
> -static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start,
> int *wrapped)
> -{
> - next = find_next_bit(cpumask_bits(mask), nr_cpumask_bits,
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:03:11AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
> -static int cpumask_next_wrap(int n, const struct cpumask *mask, int start,
> int *wrapped)
> -{
> - next = find_next_bit(cpumask_bits(mask), nr_cpumask_bits,
14 matches
Mail list logo