![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jens Axboe wrote on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:46 PM > > It's interesting, single threaded performance is down a little. Is > > this significant? In some other results you showed me with 3 splices > > each running on their own file (ie. no tree_lock contention), lockless > > looked slightly faster on the same machine. > > I can do the same numbers on a 2-way em64t for comparison, that should > get us a little better coverage. I throw the lockless patch and Jens splice-bench into our benchmark harness, here are the numbers I collected, on the following hardware: (1) 2P Intel Xeon, 3.4 GHz/HT, 2M L2 (2) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/HT, 8M L3 (3) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/DC/HT, 2M L2 (per core) Here are the graph: (1) 2P Intel Xeon, 3.4 GHz/HT, 2M L2 http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/2P-3.4Ghz.png (2) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/HT, 8M L3 http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/4P-3.0Ghz.png (3) 4P Intel Xeon, 3.0 GHz/DC/HT, 2M L2 (per core) http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/4P-3.0Ghz-DCHT.png (4) everything on one graph: http://kernel-perf.sourceforge.net/splice/splice.png - Ken - 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: 2006-04-27 05:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||