Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core] sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap()
Date	2017-06-06 11:30 +0200
Message-ID	<tPiYi-6PD-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tw8wp-11L-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tHkaT-67d-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <tI4Qq-1Z2-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tIRHs-3XA-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <tOZVE-3jm-33@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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.
> > 
> > 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:
> 
> This turned out to be a false positive; your patch improves things as
> far as I can see.

Hooray, I'll move it to a part of the queue intended for merging.

Thanks!

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

Thread

Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core]  sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap() Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2017-06-05 15:10 +0200
  Re: hackbench vs select_idle_sibling; was: [tip:sched/core]  sched/fair, cpumask: Export for_each_cpu_wrap() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-06-06 11:30 +0200

csiph-web