On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:57:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> On 2017.10.16 at 18:06 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: >> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:39:17AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Greeting, >> > >> >> > >> FYI, we noticed a -61.0% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops >> > >> due to commit: >> >> I think you are reading this wrong: >> -61.0% regression means 61.0% improvement. > > Well, it has this: > > 5b8809deb4b0a77f c4c3c3c2d00826c88b5c02c20e > ---------------- -------------------------- > %stddev change %stddev > \ | \ > 448554 -61% 174892 will-it-scale.per_process_ops > > Xiaolong, can you first explain what those numbers mean? And how do you > compute those 61%?
I still don't understand what the numbers mean, but this is a PCID machine (and it's passed through correctly), so the patch will certainly cause a regression in a benchmark that involves a lot of brief idle periods. This kind of issue is why I like having the debugfs knob there, at least until the dust settles. > > Thx. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
