From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:06:48 +0100 > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of regressions introduced between 2.6.26 and 2.6.27. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > introduced between 2.6.26 and 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let me know (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11308 > > Subject : tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 > > Submitter : Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2008-08-11 18:36 (98 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121847986119495&w=4 > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122125737421332&w=4 > > Christoph, as per the recent analysis of Mike: > > http://fixunix.com/kernel/556867-regression-benchmark-throughput-loss-a622cf6-f7160c7-pull.html > > all scheduler components of this regression have been eliminated. > > In fact his numbers show that scheduler speedups since 2.6.22 have > offset and hidden most other sources of tbench regression. (i.e. the > scheduler portion got 5% faster, hence it was able to offset a > slowdown of 5% in other areas of the kernel that tbench triggers) Although I respect the improvements, wake_up() is still several orders of magnitude slower than it was in 2.6.22 and wake_up() is at the top of the profiles in tbench runs. It really is premature to close this regression at this time. I am working with every spare moment I have to try and nail this stuff, but unless someone else helps me people need to be patient. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
