On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 01:57:36PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > This is also very similar to the ~0.6 secs improvement your > first set of numbers gave.
Yeah, running without --repeat was simply misleading. > So now that it appears we have consistent numbers, it would > be nice to check it on older hardware (and other workloads) > as well, to see whether it's a consistent win. I'll try to dig out some old boxes we have here, maybe the build robot could do some measurements too. Fengguang et al, guys, is it possible for you to run this patch: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/b0ba174ea882ed36cf7011e872baf427c23b7e09.1424458621.git.l...@amacapital.net on your fleet - has to be baremetal - to check how it behaves, performance-wise? Older machines would be preferred... That would be lovely :-) Thanks! -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- -- 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/
