On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* kernel test robot <ying.hu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
FYI, we noticed the below changes on
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
commit 65d8fc777f6dcfee12785c057a6b57f679641c90 ("futex: Remove requirement for
lock_page() in get_futex_key()")
I have asked for this before, but let me try again: could you _PLEASE_ make
these
emails more readable?
For example what are the 'below changes'? Changes in the profile output?
Profiles
always change from run to run, so that alone is not informative.
Also, there are a lot of changes - which ones prompted the email to be
generated?
All in one, this email is hard to parse, because it just dumps a lot of
information with very little explanatory structure for someone not versed in
their
format. Please try to create an easy to parse 'story' that leads the reader
towards what you want these emails to tell - not just a raw dump of seemingly
unconnected pieces of data ...
â
Thanks,
Ingo
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/lkp-sbx04/futex1/will-it-scale
If I'm reading this correctly, it is similar to what I measured wrt ~lockleless
get_futex_key()
stuff using the perf runs, with similar performance improvement numbers (per
process/thread ops).
The futex1 test will just pound on FUTEX_WAKE without anyone actually blocked
on a futex, so it
mainly measures the key/hashing part of the operation.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
