From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756524AbdJJR04 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:26:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:43248 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755794AbdJJR0v (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:26:51 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDtwu/tFB9DxZCJMLyB5zRr9MADg+CCXmkmtuTpzDC2A9zFSDUCYZ+aD2uUmyAVlylVROMRPQ== Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:26:48 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Matt Fleming , Rik van Riel , Eric Farman , ????????? , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Christian Borntraeger , "KVM-ML (kvm@vger.kernel.org)" , vcaputo@pengaru.com, Matthew Rosato Subject: Re: sysbench throughput degradation in 4.13+ Message-ID: <20171010172647.gogz7rgqtpxo5kov@gmail.com> References: <20170922155348.zujigkn3o5eylctn@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <754f5a9f-5332-148d-2631-918fc7a7cfe9@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170927093530.s3sgdz2vamc5ka4w@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170927135820.61cd077f@cuia.usersys.redhat.com> <20171002225312.GA24578@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20171003083932.3qa7jw2spmi5n5pg@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171004161850.wgnu73dokpjfyfdk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171006103623.GA3314@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20171010145137.GA2922@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20171010151615.3oczbrqujargxq5g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171010151615.3oczbrqujargxq5g@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:51:37PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > On Fri, 06 Oct, at 11:36:23AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > > > > > > It's a similar story for hackbench-threads-{pipes,sockets}, i.e. pipes > > > regress but performance is restored for sockets. > > > > > > Of course, like a dope, I forgot to re-run netperf with your WA_WEIGHT > > > patch. So I've queued that up now and it should be done by tomorrow. > > > > Yeah, netperf results look fine for either your NO_WA_WEIGHT or > > WA_WEIGHT patch. > > > > Any ETA on when this is going to tip? > > Just hit a few hours ago :-) I admit that time machines are really handy! Thanks, Ingo