No, I just started using a config file for kernbench that has every option
under the sun turned on ;-) Makes a longer test, and stabilises results.
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/people/mbligh/config/kernbench2.config
(2.4.17). It's the difference between before and after runs that's going to
be interesting anyway.
> make -j bzImage > /dev/null 317.70s user 148.43s system 1295% cpu 35.984 total
> (yes, this is 5 off of 41s, apparently 1s measurement variations are typical)
make -j is going to spawn as many tasks as possible, creating a massive
forkbomb ... that might be behind the differences - your patch might make
more of a difference for huge amounts of context switching / cache thrash
(not necessarily a bad thing, I just want to find the cause).
> make -j36 bzImage > /dev/null 302.33s user 115.02s system 1284% cpu 32.492 total
> make -j38 bzImage > /dev/null 302.52s user 117.06s system 1300% cpu 32.258 total
> make -j40 bzImage > /dev/null 303.53s user 117.42s system 1305% cpu 32.251 total
> make -j44 bzImage > /dev/null 304.02s user 122.14s system 1299% cpu 32.792 total
How does that compare with and without your patch though?
Would be useful if you can grab a before and after profile, and see exactly
what it is that's getting thrashed that you're fixing (may just be everything).
M.
-
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/