lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lmbench results for 2.4 and 2.5
> My previous testing with unix sockets prompted me to do a few lmbench 
> runs with 2.4.19 and 2.5.65. The results have me a bit concerned, as
> there is no area where 2.5 is faster and several where it is
> significantly slower.
>
> In particular:
>
> stat is 8 times worse
> open/close are 7 times worse
> fork is twice as expensive
> tcp latency is 5 times worse
> file deletion and mmap are both twice as expensive
> tcp bandwidth is 5 times worse
>
> Optimizing for muliple processors and heavy loads is nice, but this
> looks like its happening at the cost of basic performance. Is this
> really the route we should be taking?

I think you're jumping to conclusions about what causes this - let's
actually try to find the real root cause. These things have many different
causes ... for instance, rmap has been found to be a problem in some
workloads (especially things like the fork stuff). If you want to
try 65-mjb1 with and without the the shared pagetable stuff, you
may get some different results. (if you have stability problems, try
doing a patch -p1 -R of 400-shpte, it seems a little fragile right now).

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mbligh/2.5.65/

Also, if you can get kernel profiles for each test, that'd help to work
out the root cause.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.732 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site