On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 12:09 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 23:37 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Sorry for replying late. There was a severe power failure in my Lab. Below are updates against 2.6.32-rc7 kernel. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14383 > > Subject : hackbench regression with kernel 2.6.32-rc1 > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]> > > Date : 2009-10-09 9:19 (39 days old) > > First-Bad-Commit: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=29cd8bae396583a2ee9a3340db8c5102acf9f6fd > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125508007510274&w=4 > > Handled-By : Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> On core2 arch machines, hackbench regression disappears and there is much improvement instead of regression. On Nehalem machine, no big change, comparing with 2.6.31. On Itanium machines (2 sockets or 4 sockets), the regression become about 20%. Originally it's 70%. > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14384 > > Subject : tbench regression with 2.6.32-rc1 > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]> > > Date : 2009-10-09 9:51 (39 days old) > > First-Bad-Commit: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=59abf02644c45f1591e1374ee7bb45dc757fcb88 > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125508216713138&w=4 > > Handled-By : Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> On core2 arch machines, tbench regression becomes about 4%. Originally, the regression is about 33%. On Nehalem, tbench regression is about 4%. Original is 7%. On Itanium, tbench regression is about 16%. Original is 26% > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14621 > > Subject : specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]> > > Date : 2009-11-06 7:38 (11 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125749310413174&w=4 specjbb2005 and aim7 results almost have no variation. > > > Yanmin, could you please update me on the status of these regressions? > > Mike seems to have done a lot to address issues while I was out, and > while I (hopefully) did read all resulting email, I must admit to > loosing track of where we stand. Mike's patch 1b9508f6831e10 could improve netperf loopback testing. The latest upstream doesn't merge it yet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
