lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
Andrew Morton writes:
>
> I agree with me. Could you please test the scalability
> of this?

Here is the result, measured on 8-way profusion.

Andrew posted two paches, so called P1 and P2.

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.

----------
Data summary sorted by the performance:
test8 5287 <-- best performance
test10-pre5+P2: 5258
test9+P2: 5243
test9+mypatch: 5192 <-- a little bit worse
test10-pre5+P1: 5187
test1 3702 <-- no good scalability
test10-pre5: 2255 <-- negative scalability
test9 2193

The value changes within 30-50 seems fluctuations.


--
Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.174 / U:21.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site