Re: 2.5.39-mm1
Andrew Morton (akpm@digeo.com)
Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:51:48 -0700
Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:55:50 +0530, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > "Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
> >>
> >> Which looks about the same to me? Me slightly confused.
> >
> > I expect that with the node-local allocations you're not getting a lot
> > of benefit from the lock amortisation. Anton will.
> >
> > It's the lack of improvement of cache-niceness which is irksome. Perhaps
> > the heuristic should be based on recency-of-allocation and not
> > recency-of-freeing. I'll play with that.
> >
> >> Will try
> >> adding the original hot/cold stuff onto 39-mm1 if you like?
> >
> > Well, it's all in the noise floor, isn't it? Better off trying broader
> > tests. I had a play with netperf and the chatroom benchmark. But the
> > latter varied from 80,000 msgs/sec up to 350,000 between runs. --
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> chatroom benchmark gives more consistent results with some delay
> (sleep 60) between two runs.
>
oh. Thanks. Why?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/