Re: 2.5.39-mm1

[Andrew Morton]

"Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
> 
> > I must say that based on a small amount of performance testing the
> > benefits of the cache warmness thing are disappointing. Maybe 1% if
> > you squint.  Martin, could you please do a before-and-after on the
> > NUMAQ's, double check that it is actually doing the right thing?
> 
> Seems to work just fine:
> 
> 2.5.38-mm1 + my original hot/cold code.
> Elapsed: 19.798s User: 191.61s System: 43.322s CPU: 1186.4%
> 
> 2.5.39-mm1
> Elapsed: 19.532s User: 192.25s System: 42.642s CPU: 1203.2%
> 
> And it's a lot more than 1% for me ;-) About 12% of systime
> on kernel compile, IIRC.

Well that's still a 1% bottom line.  But we don't have a
comparison which shows the effects of this patch alone.

Can you patch -R the five patches and retest sometime?

I just get the feeling that it should be doing better.