On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 16:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:45:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > 3.0.101-default 3.753363 usecs/loop -- avg 3.770737 530.4 KHz 1.000 > > > 3.14.10-default 4.145348 usecs/loop -- avg 4.139987 483.1 KHz .910 1.000 > > > 3.15.4-default 4.355594 usecs/loop -- avg 4.351961 459.6 KHz .866 .951 1.000 > > > 3.16.0-default 4.537279 usecs/loop -- avg 4.543532 440.2 KHz .829 .911 .957 > > > > > > 3.0.101-smp 3.692377 usecs/loop -- avg 3.690774 541.9 KHz 1.000 > > > 3.14.10-smp 4.010009 usecs/loop -- avg 4.009019 498.9 KHz .920 > > > 3.15.4-smp 3.882398 usecs/loop -- avg 3.884095 514.9 KHz .950 > > > 3.16.0-master 4.061003 usecs/loop -- avg 4.058244 492.8 KHz .909 > > > > Urgh,.. I need to go fix that :/ > > I'm poking about. It's not just one thing 'course, just lots of change > adding up to less than wonderful. Idle changes are costing some, for > obese config, avg goop. The select_next_task() reorganization appears > to be costing, but eyeballing, I can see no excuse for that at all. How is the idle stuff costing, cpu-affine pipe-test should pretty much peg a cpu at 100%, right? Or did I mis-understand and are you running a loose pipe-test?
Attachment:
pgpeXU0T75ofV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
