lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.5.39-mm1
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:51:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Maneesh Soni wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:55:50 +0530, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > "Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Which looks about the same to me? Me slightly confused.
> > >
> > > I expect that with the node-local allocations you're not getting a lot
> > > of benefit from the lock amortisation. Anton will.
> > >
> > > It's the lack of improvement of cache-niceness which is irksome. Perhaps
> > > the heuristic should be based on recency-of-allocation and not
> > > recency-of-freeing. I'll play with that.
> > >
> > >> Will try
> > >> adding the original hot/cold stuff onto 39-mm1 if you like?
> > >
> > > Well, it's all in the noise floor, isn't it? Better off trying broader
> > > tests. I had a play with netperf and the chatroom benchmark. But the
> > > latter varied from 80,000 msgs/sec up to 350,000 between runs. --
> >
> > Hello Andrew,
> >
> > chatroom benchmark gives more consistent results with some delay
> > (sleep 60) between two runs.
> >
>
> oh. Thanks. Why?

Could be because of sockets not getting closed immediately. I see them in
TIME_WAIT state right after the run.

Maneesh

--
Maneesh Soni
IBM Linux Technology Center,
IBM India Software Lab, Bangalore.
Phone: +91-80-5044999 email: maneesh@in.ibm.com
http://lse.sourceforge.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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans