On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 10:31 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 01/10/2013 10:19 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 17:26 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > >> Please let me know if you manage to break this code in any way, > >> so I can fix it... > > > > I didn't break it, but did let it play with rq->lock contention. Using > > cyclictest -Smp99 -i 100 -d 0, with 3 rt tasks for pull_rt_task() to > > pull around appears to have been a ~dead heat. > > Good to hear that the code seems to be robust. It seems to > help prevent performance degradation in some workloads, and > nobody seems to have found regressions yet.
I had hoped for a bit of positive, but a wash isn't surprising given the profile. I tried tbench too, didn't expect to see anything at all there, and got that.. so both results are positive in that respect. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
