From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755054AbbHQL0c (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:26:32 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:45135 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754983AbbHQL0b (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 07:26:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:29:51 +0100 From: Morten Rasmussen To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, Dietmar Eggemann , yuyang.du@intel.com, mturquette@baylibre.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, Juri Lelli , sgurrappadi@nvidia.com, pang.xunlei@zte.com.cn, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/fair: Compute capacity invariant load/utilization tracking Message-ID: <20150817112951.GA8133@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1439569394-11974-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <20150816204605.GL10304@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150816204605.GL10304@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 05:23:08PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > Target: ARM TC2 A7-only (x3) > > Test: hackbench -g 25 --threads -l 10000 > > > > Before After > > 315.545 313.408 -0.68% > > > > Target: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU M 520 @ 2.40GHz > > Test: hackbench -g 25 --threads -l 1000 (avg of 10) > > > > Before After > > 6.4643 6.395 -1.07% > > Yeah, so that is a problem. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but doesn't hackbench report execution so less is better? In that case -1.07% means we are doing better with the patches applied (after time < before time). In any case, I should have indicated whether the change is good or bad for performance. > I'm taking it some of the new scaling stuff doesn't compile away, can we > look at fixing that? I will double-check that the stuff goes away as expected. I'm pretty sure it does on ARM.