![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
"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. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||