Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:59:10 +0100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: newidle balancing in NUMA domain? |
| |
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:04:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > > > > .32 is kind of closed, with us being at -rc8. > > > > It's a bad regression though. > > It's about 3 months too late for that. Ideally we want performance
Too late for what? Reporting and reverting a regression? I don't think so. It is not my problem if patches aren't tested well enough before being merged.
If we release a kernel with this known problematic scheduler behaviour then it gives userspace application writers far harder targets, and also it will give *some* 2.6.32 users regressions if we find it has to be fixed in 2.6.33.
> regressions to be looked for and reported when the patches go into the > devel tree. Failing that, -rc1 would be the good time to re-test > whatever workload you care about. > > If you cannot test it in a regular fashion you can offload the testing > to us, by adding a similar/equivalent workload to 'perf bench sched'. > We'll make sure it stays sane.
What exactly tests *were* done on it? Anything that might possibly trigger its obvious possibility for detremental behaviour? Something like netperf?
| |