On 07/05/2013 01:41 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: [snip] >> >> Have you tried to use more loops and groups? will that show even bigger >> regressions? > > Nope, less on either side. > > hackbench -g 100 -l 1000 > avg > 3.10.0-regress 21.895 21.564 21.777 21.958 22.093 21.857 > 1.000 > 3.10.0-regressx 22.844 23.268 23.056 23.231 22.375 22.954 > 1.050 > > hackbench -g 1 -l 100000 > avg > 3.10.0-regress 29.913 29.711 30.395 30.213 30.236 30.093 > 1.000 > 3.10.0-regressx 30.392 31.003 30.728 31.008 30.389 30.704 > 1.020
Hmm...I'm not expecting to reserve all of the 15%, but this still seems a little bit more... PeterZ has suggested some optimization which I sent out yesterday, I suppose they haven't been included into this test yet, correct? Since currently I could not reproduce the issue on my box with that patch, I suppose it may solved that issue ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > >> BTW, is this the results of 10 group and 40 sockets == 400 tasks? > > Yeah, stock. > > Off to do some body/mind tuning. Bavarian mushrooms don't hide as well > as memory access thingies.. and I can still out run 'em. > > -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/ > -- 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/
