From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752545AbZL2Fex (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:34:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751359AbZL2Few (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:34:52 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:17521 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775AbZL2Few (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:34:52 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,466,1257148800"; d="scan'208";a="479802088" Subject: Re: tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 From: Lin Ming To: Mike Galbraith Cc: "peterz@infradead.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , linux-kernel , "Zhang, Yanmin" In-Reply-To: <1262064292.6412.30.camel@marge.simson.net> References: <1261739467.10685.18.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <1261902760.6201.33.camel@marge.simson.net> <1262052582.10685.59.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <1262064292.6412.30.camel@marge.simson.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:19 +0800 Message-Id: <1262063959.13697.6.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1 (2.24.1-2.fc10) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 13:24 +0800, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 10:09 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > > And also no regression if I run tbench with RT scheduler on tulsa > > machine, as below command, > > > > schedtool -R -p 20 -e tbench_srv & > > schedtool -R -p 20 -e tbench 32 > > Hm, odd. I'd expect tbench to suffer when run SCHED_RR, and here it > does, achieving roughly 85% of lowest SCHED_OTHER throughput. Here is some misunderstanding. I compared SCHED_RR tbench with 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc1 and no regression found. For the same kernel, SCHED_RR tbench only achieved ~40% of SCHED_OTHER throughput. Lin Ming