[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.6.25-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.24
    On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 01:32 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > [Due to the lack of time for reviewing all of the email threads related to the
    > regressions marked as "unresolved" below, I might have missed some patches
    > fixing them. If you are involved in debugging/fixing any of them, please let
    > me know if I should update the list. Thanks!]
    > This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.24 reported since
    > 2.6.25-rc1 was released, for which there are no fixes in the mainline I know
    > of. If any of them have been fixed already, please let me know.
    > If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.24, please let me know
    > either and I'll add them to the list. Also, please let me know if any of the
    > entries below are invalid.
    > Listed regressions statistics:
    > Date Total Pending Unresolved
    > ----------------------------------------
    > 2008-03-10 138 66 47
    > 2008-03-03 115 65 49
    > 2008-02-25 90 51 39
    > 2008-02-17 61 45 37
    > Unresolved regressions
    > ----------------------
    > Bug-Entry :
    > Subject : 2.6.25-rc1: volanoMark 45% regression
    > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <>
    > Date : 2008-02-13 10:30
    > References :
    > Handled-By : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <>
    > Balbir Singh <>
    Peter reverted the load balance patch and 2.6.25-rc4 accepted the reverting patch.

    With kernel 2.6.25-rc5, volanoMark has about 6% regression on my 16-core tigerton. If I apply
    patch which fixes the tbench regression issue, volanoMark
    regression becomes about 4%.

    I tried to bisect down which patch caused the last 4%, but found it's very hard. One thing
    is many patches depend on the reverted patches. The other thing is I find the testing result
    isn't stable since 2.6.25-rc1. The result variation might be more than 15% sometimes. I ran the
    testing against the same kernel for many times to get the best result.

    I also tried to tune some sched_XXX parameters under /proc/sys/kernel, but didn't get better result
    than the default configuration.

    Above regression exists on the 2.93GHz 16-core tigerton. With the less powerful 2.40GHz 16-core
    tigerton, the regression is less than 1%, but result is not stable and results of many runs might have
    about 15% variation.

    On 8-core stoakley, the regression is about 1%.

    Sorry for the late update.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-12 09:53    [W:0.031 / U:4.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site