[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [benchmark] 2.4.0-test6-pre1 PAE vs non-PAE
Hi Ingo!

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the 3% performance drop

that is 6, not 3. 129.6/136.5 = 0.94945054945054945054 ~ 0.94 (ok, 0.95
but no way it is 0.97 :)

> is mainly due to two values, 'Pipe-based Context Switching',
>'Process Creation', and 'Execl Throughput'.

that is 3, not 2.

the rest of your mail makes perfect sense, thank you.

> The fork() and
> exec() result is understandably worse with PAE, because the 'density' of
> page-tables is half of that of non-PAE page-tables (ie. twice as much has
> to be copied), plus there are 3 user-space root page tables instead of the
> 1. (which have to be zeroed, so this shows up big time.)
> Another performance problem is likely the amount of LOCK-ed instructions
> done within the PAE include-files - some of that is unnecessery as David
> S. Miller noticed.
> otherwise the PAE kernels show no performance drop in 'typical' user-space
> stuff. But yes, you dont want to use it on a box with less than 4GB RAM.


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 13:57    [W:0.047 / U:5.520 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site