tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post2310431684945818072..comments2024-02-29T00:33:07.382-08:00Comments on Alfred Chen's Blog: v4.6_0470_test1 patch for testing Alfred Chenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-3968091977801494442016-06-28T17:34:37.449-07:002016-06-28T17:34:37.449-07:00@anonymous
Thanks for testing. Sure, interactivene...@anonymous<br />Thanks for testing. Sure, interactiveness and performance are two major factors I want to balance in these changes(and -vrq branch). The last time I check the Cyclictest for the -test branch code a few days ago, there are no regression compare to -vrq branch. For the cyclictest test, you can have a look at my post at http://cchalpha.blogspot.com/2015/12/gc-and-vrq-branch-update-for-v431-and.html<br /><br />Measure improvements over mainline kernel is not so fair as bfs and mainline cfs has different design targets. The last result I have done such tests are at https://cchalpha.blogspot.com/2015/08/41-gc-vrq-sanity-test-result-and-look.html , you can take it as a reference. I am thinking about having such tests for 4.6 in the rest of time frame in this release, will post the result when they are done.<br /><br />BR AlfredAlfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-35288186301123453122016-06-28T08:29:56.792-07:002016-06-28T08:29:56.792-07:00Hi!
I'm currently using 4.5 w/ VRQ, no issues...Hi!<br /><br />I'm currently using 4.5 w/ VRQ, no issues so far, it's working very well, will compile a 4.6 test1 to check it out, but I have a simple question, how do You measure performance for interactiveness to compare changes?<br /><br />Did You try to measure improvements over mainline or LQX kernels as well?<br /><br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-83845184950362597142016-06-25T06:46:09.760-07:002016-06-25T06:46:09.760-07:00Very nice to hear! :-)
Please, keep us informed ab...Very nice to hear! :-)<br />Please, keep us informed about these new releases, as always.<br />Very promising and successful work that you're doing.<br /><br />BR Manuel KrauseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-75746530928718398052016-06-25T00:45:16.199-07:002016-06-25T00:45:16.199-07:00@Manuel
Sure there are performance improvement or ...@Manuel<br />Sure there are performance improvement or I won't take effect into these new changes. It's about 0.5 to 2 seconds less than -vrq branch show in normal policy 200% to 300% workload kernel compile tests(about 3min for a single test), 50%~150% workload are most identical to -vrq branch.<br /><br />I am planning to give 1~2 more test release to clean-up the code then merge these new changes to -vrq branch in next release.<br /><br />BR AlfredAlfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-73826785141930235322016-06-24T04:50:47.970-07:002016-06-24T04:50:47.970-07:00Also after over 24h of uptime and regular use, I c...Also after over 24h of uptime and regular use, I can't report any issues, and can't even tell whether this test1 version is equal or maybe even superior vs. standard VRQ.<br />Do your performance test numbers show differences?<br /><br />BR Manuel KrauseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-8178543053050371322016-06-23T04:43:58.737-07:002016-06-23T04:43:58.737-07:00Thanks for the quick testing and feedback. :)Thanks for the quick testing and feedback. :)Alfred Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164306846702841944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2963790426029213933.post-44717255948752543532016-06-23T03:41:29.678-07:002016-06-23T03:41:29.678-07:00Yeah, significant improvements with this revision!...Yeah, significant improvements with this revision! :-)))<br />Only running for some hours so far, so I need more time to test, but my first impression is very positive. Seems like I cannot see interactivity differences vs. standard VRQ anymore.<br />Let's read other's experience reports.<br /><br />Thank you for your continued efforts, <br />BR Manuel KrauseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com