[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
> >
> > I agree with me. Could you please test the scalability
> > of this?
> Here is the result, measured on 8-way profusion.

Thank you!

> Andrew posted two paches, so called P1 and P2.

Was `P2' the shorter one? It looks like it.

> Req/s
> test10-pre5: 2255 bad performance
> ----
> test9+P2: 5243
> test10-pre5+P1: 5187
> test10-pre5+P2: 5258
> P2 may be a little bit better.

I'd be interested in seeing the -DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT

Dean, it looks like the same problem will occur with flock()-based
serialisation. Does Apache/Linux ever use that option?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.143 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site