On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:42:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:39:40AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 13:24:05 +0800
> > Aaron Lu <aaron.lu(a)intel.com> wrote:
> > > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
> > > commit a43455a1d572daf7b730fe12eb747d1e17411365 ("sched/numa: Ensure
task_numa_migrate() checks the preferred node")
> > >
> > > ebe06187bf2aec1 a43455a1d572daf7b730fe12e
> > > --------------- -------------------------
> > > 94500 ~ 3% +115.6% 203711 ~ 6%
> > > 67745 ~ 4% +64.1% 111174 ~ 5%
> > > 162245 ~ 3% +94.1% 314885 ~ 6% TOTAL
> > Hi Aaron,
> > Jirka Hladky has reported a regression with that changeset as
> > well, and I have already spent some time debugging the issue.
> So assuming those numbers above are the difference in
Yes, they are.
It means, for commit ebe06187bf2aec1, the number for
num_hint_local_faults is 94500 for ivb42 machine and 67745 for lkp-snb01
machine. The 3%, 4% following that number means the deviation of the
different runs to their average(we usually run it multiple times to
phase out possible sharp values). We should probably remove that
percentage, as they cause confusion if no detailed explanation and may
not mean much to the commit author and others(if the deviation is big
enough, we should simply drop that result).
The percentage in the middle is the change between the two commits.
Another thing is the meaning of the numbers, it doesn't seem that
evident they are for proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local. Maybe something
like this is better?
Instead of removing info, why not document what each piece of data
represents. Or add headers to the table. etc.