Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1630523
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes |
| Date | 2017-04-25 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tA90R-5mC-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tyKee-8vc-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tA56W-2RZ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +0000, Lofstedt, Marta wrote: > Hi Peterz, > > I tested your patch-set on the same Core2 machine as where we discovered the regression. > With the tsc=unstable boot param that passrate has improved significantly; 350 fails -> 15 fails. So is that the same as before, or still worse? I don't really have a handle on what your benchmark is here, nor what how 'good' is defined. If its still worse than before, I'm completely confused. Because with "tsc=unstable" the patch you fingered is a complete no-op (__gtod_offset == 0).
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
RE: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@intel.com> - 2017-04-25 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-25 15:50 +0200
RE: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@intel.com> - 2017-04-26 08:50 +0200
csiph-web