![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 09:19 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: >> Zhang, Yanmin wrote: >>> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 16:57 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote: >>>>> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9978 >>>>> Subject : 2.6.25-rc1: volanoMark 45% regression >>>>> Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> >>>>> Date : 2008-02-13 10:30 >>>>> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/13/128 >>>>> Handled-By : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>> >>>> Peter's revert of the load balance patches should fix this one. Yanmin, >>>> could you please confirm if the patch at >>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/25/202 helps? >>> I tested it against 2.6.25-rc3 on my 16-core tigerton machine. It really improves >>> volano result although it doesn't recover all the result. >>> Comparing with 2.6.24, without the patch, volanoMark has about 50% regression >>> with 2.6.25-rc3. With the patch, volanoMark has about 15% regression. >>> >> Have you had a chance to git-bisect the culprit after the revert? > How to bisect it if the reverted patch is submitted after the culprit patch? Good question. What I would do is create a branch at the patches that caused the regression and apply all patches (except the reverted patches to it, solving conflicts if any) and run git-bisect that. But, I suspect it is a lot of work. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-05 07:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||