Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> Here is the comparison result with perf-profile data. > > Heh. The diff is actually harder to read than just showing A/B > state.The fact that the call chain

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: >> >> Here is the comparison result with perf-profile data. > > Heh. The diff is actually harder to read than just showing A/B > state.The fact that the call chain shows up as part of the symbol > makes it even more

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: > > Here is the comparison result with perf-profile data. Heh. The diff is actually harder to read than just showing A/B state.The fact that the call chain shows up as part of the symbol makes it even more so. For

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: > > Here is the comparison result with perf-profile data. Heh. The diff is actually harder to read than just showing A/B state.The fact that the call chain shows up as part of the symbol makes it even more so. For example: > 0.00 ± -1%

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

"Huang, Ying" writes: > Hi, Linus, > > Linus Torvalds writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> >>> That, to me, says there's a change in lock contention behaviour in >>> the workload (which

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

"Huang, Ying" writes: > Hi, Linus, > > Linus Torvalds writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> >>> That, to me, says there's a change in lock contention behaviour in >>> the workload (which we know aim7 is good at exposing). i.e. the >>> iomap change shifted

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

Hi, Linus, Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> That, to me, says there's a change in lock contention behaviour in >> the workload (which we know aim7 is good at exposing). i.e. the >> iomap

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression

Hi, Linus, Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> That, to me, says there's a change in lock contention behaviour in >> the workload (which we know aim7 is good at exposing). i.e. the >> iomap change shifted contention from a sleeping lock to a

<    1   2   3