On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 14:55, <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> You followed up mentioning this wasn't with master-next. I think there > is a patch in -next which will help with the empty task spin so both > together might get us back to more normal numbers. > As all of these patches are now in master, I re-ran the test with that (209f89ab8ed51ac2867ca8f749336af1ee24ab25), but without including the spinning task part, pressing ctrl-c just as it starts. The outcome is 9m42s, compared to 2m9s for the baseline (6c7c0cefd34067311144a1d4c01986fe0a4aef26). So the worst is fixed, but the slowdown is still noticeable. Alex
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
