[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: newidle balancing in NUMA domain?
    On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:04:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Nick Piggin <> 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?

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-24 08:01    [W:0.021 / U:1.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site