Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-rc3-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.24 | From | "Zhang, Yanmin" <> | Date | Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:26:33 +0800 |
| |
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 10:06 +0800, 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. One more update on the reverted patch: Comparing with 2.6.24, cpu2000-fp has about 4% regression with kernel 2.6.25-rc on my madison IPF machine. As you know, cpu2000-fp consists of many sub-testing. The most regression looks relevant to a couple of testing in the middle step. But if I ran the sub-testing manually, I couldn't see any regression. If I started kernel with boot parameter maxcpus=1, the regression becomes 1%.
If I apply Peter's revert patch to 2.6.25-rc3, the regression also becomes 1%.
I don't know what causes the last 1% regression.
-yanmin
| |