From: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:27:48 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601121327.48640.kernel@kolivas.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43C5BD8F.3000307@bigpond.net.au>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:23 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:29 pm, Peter Williams wrote:
> >>Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>>This is a shot in the dark. We haven't confirmed 1. there is a problem
> >>> 2. that this is the problem nor 3. that this patch will fix the
> >>> problem.
> >>
> >>I disagree. I think that there is a clear mistake in my original patch
> >>that this patch fixes.
> >
> > I agree with you on that. The real concern is that we were just about to
> > push it upstream. So where does this leave us? I propose we delay
> > merging the "improved smp nice handling" patch into mainline pending your
> > further changes.
>
> I think that they're already in 2.6.15 minus my "move load not tasks"
> modification which I was expecting to go into 2.6.16. Is that what you
> meant?
Yes, akpm included your patch under the name of something like "improved smp
nice handling". My smp nice patches went into mainline 2.6.15 and were
extensively tested for performance regressions. This is about your move load
not tasks modification which is the patch in question that might be affecting
performance.
Con
> If so I think this is a small and obvious fix that shouldn't delay the
> merging of "move load not tasks" into the mainline. But it's not my call.
>
> Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-12 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-11 1:14 -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Martin Bligh
2006-01-11 1:31 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11 1:41 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11 1:48 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11 1:49 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 2:38 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 3:07 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 3:12 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11 3:40 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 3:49 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 4:33 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 5:14 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 6:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-11 12:24 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 14:29 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 22:05 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 0:54 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 1:18 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 1:29 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 1:36 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 2:23 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 2:26 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 6:39 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-23 19:28 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-24 1:25 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24 3:50 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24 4:41 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-24 6:22 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24 6:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-28 23:20 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-29 0:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12 2:27 ` Con Kolivas [this message]
2006-01-12 2:04 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 6:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12 6:41 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 6:54 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 18:39 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 20:03 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 22:20 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 7:06 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 12:00 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 16:15 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-13 16:26 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 17:54 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 20:41 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-14 0:23 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 5:03 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14 5:40 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-14 6:05 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14 5:53 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 6:13 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-13 22:59 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 18:48 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-15 0:05 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-15 2:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-15 2:09 ` [PATCH] sched - remove unnecessary smpnice ifdefs Con Kolivas
2006-01-15 3:50 ` -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Ingo Molnar
2006-01-12 1:25 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 1:52 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200601121327.48640.kernel@kolivas.org \
--to=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).