Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:55:58 -0700 | From | yodaiken@chelm ... | Subject | Re: PATCH 2.3.26: kmalloc GFP_ZERO |
| |
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 08:55:15PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, David S. Miller wrote: > > > From: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch> > > Date: 09 Nov 1999 18:00:49 +0100 > > > > now did you in fact see a 20% speedup on kernel compiles? I for > > some reason strongly doubt that. > > > >I don't, it makes perfect sense since gcc is heavy on anonymous page > >usage. > > Are you still talking about a cache of zeroed pages? Looks a bad idea to > me.
The numbers say otherwise.
> It can only improve latency after some idle time. If your CPU are under > 100% of load for a long time you'll have to spend the memset(0) time > anyway but in another place and with an additional scheduler cost. Also
The idle task will build a cache of zeroed pages. If nothing is in the cache, you pay the standard cost.
> the idle task will be less fast in rescheduling itself.
Why?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |