Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:13:22 -0800 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: percpu-2.5.63-bk5-1 (properly generated) |
| |
>> Did you actually read the previous email? >> Same config file? Same tree? same compiler (gcc 2.95.4?) > > gcc2.95.4; 2.5.63-bk5 w/& w/o, no patchkits prior, .config below
Wildly different config being compile tested => difference in speed.ls
>> I think we're talking about different things: >> 1. Need to isolate what's causing the 6s improvement you're seeing. >> Can you generate profiles & time output for before and after the patch, >> and describe the test you're running (presumably make -j). >> 2. SDET degredation. I'll try the additional patch you sent out on that. > > It's not hard to figure out.
Part 2 may not be ... part 1 is ;-)
>> 60 125.0% page_address >> 12 63.2% __pagevec_lru_add_active >> 11 47.8% bad_range >> 10 15.9% kmap_atomic > > All users of page_zone(). The question you're (hopefully) about to > answer is whether it was the division or something else like codesize > or the newly introduced indirection. > > If that is still seeing page_zone() suckage, I'll rip zone_table[] out > of it entirely.
Still degraded: diffprofile:
781 1.6% total 346 1.0% default_idle 217 10.1% __down 79 12.0% __wake_up 51 70.8% page_address 32 66.7% kmap_atomic 24 5.3% page_remove_rmap 16 19.3% clear_page_tables 14 4.6% release_pages 13 33.3% path_release 13 6.7% __copy_to_user_ll 13 260.0% bad_range 11 1.3% do_schedule 10 15.6% pte_alloc_one
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/
| |