Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1642305
| From | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() |
| Date | 2017-05-16 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tHGbn-3ia-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tH67U-4Wy-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tH67U-4Wy-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tHqJk-1Wb-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
* Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: > I collected about 700 results in dmesg, and took 600 fastest. > For the vanilla kernel, the average value is 368, and for patched > kernel it is 388. It's 5% slower. But the standard deviation is > really big for both series' - 131 and 106 cycles respectively, which > is ~ 30%. And so, my conclusion is: there's no benefit in using > sched_find_first_bit() comparing to find_first_bit(). Erm, so you in essence claim: "according to measurements the new code is 5% slower, with a high, 30% stddev, hence the new code is better!" Basic logic fail... Thanks, Ingo
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-05-14 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-05-15 18:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-05-15 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-05-15 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-05-16 10:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched: remove sched_find_first_bit() Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-05-18 09:20 +0200
csiph-web