Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Updated Linux kernel preemption patches | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 26 Aug 2001 23:09:49 -0400 |
| |
On Sun, 2001-08-26 at 23:06, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Congratulations on showing evidence that preemption can improve performance > under some loads, especially the all-important kernel compile. Don't be too > worried about the dbench 1 results, dbench can vary by a factor of 2 > depending on the alignment of the planets (ask Tridge). Try something more > stable like bonnie.
I would be happy to run some other tests. I was happy to see the kernel compile prove faster, and I fully expected the dbench 16 results to show an improvement. But, while I assumed dbench 1 may show a degradation in performance, I was surprised it was so high.
My main goal in updating Nigel's patches to recent kernels was to accomplish just this: get some more data points, some more benchmarks, and more eyes on the code and systems running the patch.
I am not an audio guy or otherwise in need of a lower-latency system, but the possibility for an overall improvement in the kernel (even at the expense of some cases) is worthwhile, to me.
> The theory goes that preemption improves performance by cutting down the time > between IO completion and user task resume, with only a small cost in extra > locking. It would be nice to see profiling statistics to support this idea.
Anyone running the patch want to profile some situations and reach some conclusions?
-- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net
- 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/
|  |