On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 07:37:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:39:05PM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote:
> I'm doing 3 iterations (3 runs) to get some statistics. To speed up the test
> significantly please do the run with 20 warehouses only
> (or in general with #warehouses == number of nodes * number of PHYSICAL
Yeah, went and did that for my 4 node machine, its got a ton more cores, but I
matches the warehouses to it:
988314.45 1100355.64 (avg)
So for 5 runs, tip/master (which includes the offending patch) wins hands down.
Each run is 2 minutes.
Because Rik asked for a43455a1d57^1 numbers:
some a43455a1d57 numbers:
same setup and everything. So clearly the patches after that made 'some'
difference indeed, seeing how tip/master is almost twice that.
So the reason I didn't so a43455a1d57^1 vs a43455a1d57 is because we already
fingered a commit, after that what you test is the revert of that commit,
because revert is what you typically end up doing if a commit is fail.
But on the state of tip/master, taking that commit out is a net negative for
everything I've tested.