> Which of the 4 patches does this? I used all the 4 patches at the same time. Each patch fixes a different bug. Would you like me to try each of them individually? Were you already aware of each of these bugs?
> Also, what hypervisor are you using and what does the output of booting > with "sched_debug" look like? I was running the distro in VirualBox on Fedora. Here's the info from /proc/sched_debug: https://justpaste.it/11dhb dmesg: https://justpaste.it/11dhr > Lastly, can you reproduce on real hardware? No. On real hardware, I tested in Ubuntu on an i7-4790 3.60GHz CPU without disabling HT and I saw no difference between CFS, the patched kernel and MuQSS. If I get to know a reason why one would be better than the other, I'd take the time to test it on more hardware. I'm curious how I got such a performance improvement in my VM. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 04:41:51PM -0500, Alexandre-Xavier Labonté-Lamoureux > wrote: >> >> Here are my results (using "time make -j32" on my VM that has 4 cores): >> >> Kernel 4.8.14 >> real 26m56.151s >> user 79m52.472s >> sys 7m42.964s >> >> Same kernel, but patched: >> real 4m25.238s >> user 13m52.932s >> sys 1m25.820s >> >> I hope you guys will look into this. > > Which of the 4 patches does this? > > Also, what hypervisor are you using and what does the output of booting > with "sched_debug" look like? > > Lastly, can you reproduce on real hardware?
