On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 21:55 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > This patchset has also been tested on smaller systems for a variety of > > benchmarks, including java workloads, kernel builds and custom > > bang-the-hell-out-of > > hb locks programs. So far, no functional or performance regressions have > > been seen. > > Furthermore, no issues were found when running the different tests in the > > futextest > > suite: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dvhart/futextest.git/ > > Excellent. Would you be able to contribute any of these (C only please) > to the stress test group? FWIW, I plugged this series into an rt kernel (extra raciness) and beat it up a bit on a 64 core box too. Nothing fell out, nor did futextest numbers change outside variance (poor box has 8 whole gig ram, single numa node, so kinda crippled/wimpy, and not good box for benchmarking). What concerned me most about the series was 5/5.. looks like a great idea to me, but the original thread did not have a happy ending. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
