Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle_siblings rewrite

2016-05-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 06:24:49PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:51:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hai, > > here be a semi coherent patch series for the recent select_idle_siblings() > tinkering. Happy be

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle_siblings rewrite

2016-05-25 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:51:20AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hai, > > > > here be a semi coherent patch series for the recent select_idle_siblings() > > tinkering. Happy benchmarking.. > > This took a while, mostly because my o

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle_siblings rewrite

2016-05-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hai, > > here be a semi coherent patch series for the recent select_idle_siblings() > tinkering. Happy benchmarking.. This took a while, mostly because my original schbench showed your patches were just as fast as our internal patc

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle_siblings rewrite

2016-05-11 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hai, > > here be a semi coherent patch series for the recent select_idle_siblings() > tinkering. Happy benchmarking.. I ran a few more rounds of the production benchmarks, and NO_AVG_CPU is consistently faster by about 5% than AVG_

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] sched: select_idle_siblings rewrite

2016-05-09 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hai, > > here be a semi coherent patch series for the recent select_idle_siblings() > tinkering. Happy benchmarking.. Thanks Peter, I'll have some production numbers tomorrow, but based on schbench I'm hoping it'll score better th