[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: LMbench2.0 results
From: William Lee Irwin III <>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 01:28:21 -0700
> But if this were truly the issue, the allocation and deallocation
> overhead for pagetables should show up as additional pressure
> against zone->lock.

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 01:25:26AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> The big gain is not only that allocation/free is cheap, also
> page table entries tend to hit in cpu cache for even freshly
> allocated page tables.
> I think that is the bit that would show up in the mmap lmbench
> test.

I'd have to doublecheck to see how parallelized lat_mmap is. My
machines are considerably more sensitive to locking uglies than cache
warmth. (They're taking my machines out, not just slowing them down.)
Cache warmth goodies are certainly nice optimizations, though.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.059 / U:1.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site