Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:00:27 +1100 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) |
| |
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp 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 figures.
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |