On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 23:03 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 05:22:07PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:06:30AM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > Comparing with 2.6.25, volanoMark has big regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1.
> > > It's about 50% on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton, and Itanium Montecito.
> > > 
> > > With bisect, I located below patch.
> > > 
> > > 18d95a2832c1392a2d63227a7a6d433cb9f2037e is first bad commit
> > > commit 18d95a2832c1392a2d63227a7a6d433cb9f2037e
> > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> > > Date:   Sat Apr 19 19:45:00 2008 +0200
> > > 
> > >     sched: fair-group: SMP-nice for group scheduling
> > >     
> > >     Implement SMP nice support for the full group hierarchy.
> > > 
> > > If I reverse the patch with resolving some conflictions, volanoMark result could
> > > be restored completely.
> > > 
> > 
> > ok, that's bad. Let's get vatsa and Ingo also involved.
> > 
> 
> Just to confirm, do you still have a performance regression with
> !group_sched?
I just tried it with CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED=n a moment ago. The regression becomes less than 3%.



--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/