|Summary:||tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1|
|Product:||Process Management||Reporter:||Rafael J. Wysocki (rjw)|
|Bug Depends on:|
Description Rafael J. Wysocki 2009-12-29 14:09:11 UTC
Subject : tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 Submitter : Lin Ming <email@example.com> Date : 2009-12-25 11:11 References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126174044213172&w=4 Notify-Also : Mike Galbraith <firstname.lastname@example.org> This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.32. Please don't close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
Comment 1 Rafael J. Wysocki 2010-02-02 20:45:11 UTC
On Monday 01 February 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 01:22 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of recent regressions. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > from 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > > (either way). > > Yes, it should remain open. Looking for places to trim overhead without > injuring other things. The regression is a moving target on my HW.
Comment 2 Rafael J. Wysocki 2010-03-22 21:31:50 UTC
On Monday 22 March 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:30 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let the tracking team know (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14950 > > Subject : tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1 > > Submitter : Lin Ming <email@example.com> > > Date : 2009-12-25 11:11 (87 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126174044213172&w=4 > > This needs retest in tip. I submitted some patchlets to shave a few > cycles, with which my box (fwtw) shows zero regression 2.6.31 -> > tip.today, whereas there was nothing but regression of up to ~6% in > between, magnitude seemingly depending on phase-of-moon. Actually, > patched tip at submission time was a fraction above 31 throughput. > Retesting today, it's a fraction of a percent below again (tbench is > annoyingly jittery). > > Hopefully, this tbench regression is on it's way to retirement.