Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:43:58 +0530 | From | Maneesh Soni <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |