From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Lofstedt, Marta" <marta.lofstedt@intel.com>
Cc: "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
"martin.peres@linux.intel.com" <martin.peres@linux.intel.com>,
"pasha.tatashin@oracle.com" <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
"daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:44:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170425134448.hmhsnq2nnlz6jbci@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA5F6A4B62957246A95956419746064359680FFD@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:31:40AM +0000, Lofstedt, Marta wrote:
> Hi Peterz,
>
> I tested your patch-set on the same Core2 machine as where we discovered the regression.
> With the tsc=unstable boot param that passrate has improved significantly; 350 fails -> 15 fails.
So is that the same as before, or still worse? I don't really have a
handle on what your benchmark is here, nor what how 'good' is defined.
If its still worse than before, I'm completely confused. Because with
"tsc=unstable" the patch you fingered is a complete no-op (__gtod_offset
== 0).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-25 13:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-21 14:57 Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:57 ` [PATCH 1/9] x86/tsc: Provide tsc=unstable boot parameter Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:57 ` [PATCH 2/9] x86,tsc: Feed refined TSC calibration into sched_clock Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:57 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched/clock: Initialize all per-cpu state before switching (back) to unstable Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:58 ` [PATCH 4/9] x86/tsc,sched/clock,clocksource: Use clocksource watchdog to provide stable sync points Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:58 ` [PATCH 5/9] sched/clock: Remove unused argument to sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event() Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:58 ` [PATCH 6/9] sched/clock: Remove watchdog touching Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:58 ` [PATCH 8/9] sched/clock: Use late_initcall() instead of sched_init_smp() Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-21 14:58 ` [PATCH 9/9] sched/clock: Print a warning recommending tsc=unstable Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-25 9:31 ` [PATCH 0/9] sched_clock fixes Lofstedt, Marta
2017-04-25 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-04-26 6:41 ` Lofstedt, Marta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170425134448.hmhsnq2nnlz6jbci@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marta.lofstedt@intel.com \
--cc=martin.peres@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@oracle.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®