Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1163748

Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/11/2015 04:33 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:

> Ugh I'm sorry, I've been running tests trying to get the numbers to look
> good when I noticed I was getting some inconsistencies in my results.
> Turns out I never actually tested your patch just plain, I had been
> testing it with BALANCE_WAKE, because I was under the assumption that
> was what was best for our workload.  Since then I had fixed all of our
> scripts and such and noticed that it actually super duper sucks for us.
>  So testing with this original patch everything is significantly better
> (this is with the default SD flags set, no changes at all).
> 
> So now that I've wasted a good bit of my time and everybody elses, can
> we go about pushing this patch upstream?  If you are happy with it the
> way it is I'll go ahead and pull it into our kernels and just watch to
> make sure it ends upstream at some point.  Thanks,

FWIW, Jirka has run some tests with the patch as well,
and seen significant performance improvements on
various tests, on various systems.

Merging the patch makes perfect sense to me.

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>

-- 
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for  BALANCE_WAKE Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> - 2015-06-11 22:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for  BALANCE_WAKE Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2015-06-12 05:50 +0200

csiph-web