On 01/27/2013 06:40 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:41:40AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> Just rerun some benchmarks: kbuild, specjbb2005, oltp, tbench, aim9, >> hackbench, fileio-cfq of sysbench, dbench, aiostress, multhreads >> loopback netperf. on my core2, nhm, wsm, snb, platforms. no clear >> performance change found. > > Ok, good, You could put that in one of the commit messages so that it is > there and people know that this patchset doesn't cause perf regressions > with the bunch of benchmarks. > >> I also tested balance policy/powersaving policy with above benchmark, >> found, the specjbb2005 drop much 30~50% on both of policy whenever >> with openjdk or jrockit. and hackbench drops a lots with powersaving >> policy on snb 4 sockets platforms. others has no clear change. > > I guess this is expected because there has to be some performance hit > when saving power... >
BTW, I had tested the v3 version based on sched numa -- on tip/master. The specjbb just has about 5~7% dropping on balance/powersaving policy. The power scheduling done after the numa scheduling logical. -- 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/
