lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: percpu-2.5.63-bk5-1 (properly generated)

> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 04:07:01PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> Failing that, if you can split it into 3 or 4 patches along the lines I
>> suggested earlier, I'll try benching each bit seperately for you.
>
> Last ditch effort. No per_node stuff at all, and no new per_cpu users.


OK, that seems to get rid of the SDET degradation, but I rigged up the
same test you were doing (make -j) and see only marginal improvement
from the full patch (pernode2) ... not the 6s you were seeing.

Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 2 x num_cpus)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.63-mjb2 44.09 94.38 557.26 1477.00
2.5.63-mjb2-pernode2 44.54 96.38 557.30 1466.75
2.5.63-mjb2-pernode3 44.01 95.22 556.69 1481.25

Kernbench: (make -j N vmlinux, where N = 16 x num_cpus)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.63-mjb2 45.53 118.06 560.48 1489.50
2.5.63-mjb2-pernode2 45.25 116.68 561.28 1497.50
2.5.63-mjb2-pernode3 45.30 116.91 559.82 1492.00

Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks)
Elapsed System User CPU
2.5.63-mjb2 45.17 117.80 560.62 1500.50
2.5.63-mjb2-pernode2 44.91 115.95 560.98 1505.25
2.5.63-mjb2-pernode3 45.47 118.07 560.25 1491.75


-pernode2 was your full patch with the fix you sent, -pernode3 was the
smaller patch you sent last. Can you try to reproduce the improvment
were seeing, and grab a before and after profile? I don't seem to be
able to replicate it.

M.

-
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 13:33    [W:0.050 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site