Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:43:33 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview |
| |
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'm not particularly "stuck on" the per-cpu business, it was merely the >> most obvious method of splitting the RSS counter without catastrophes >> elsewhere. Robin Holt's 2.4 performance studies actually show that >> splitting the counter is not even essential.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:44:02AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > There is no problem moving back to the atomic approach that is if it is > okay to also make anon_rss atomic. But its a pretty significant > performance hit (comparison with some old data from V4 of patch which > makes this data a bit suspect since the test environment is likely > slightly different. I should really test this again. Note that the old > performance test was only run 3 times instead of 10): > atomic vs. sloppy rss performance 64G allocation:
The specific patches you compared matter a great deal as there are implementation blunders (e.g. poor placement of counters relative to ->mmap_sem) that can ruin the results. URL's to the specific patches would rule out that source of error.
-- wli - 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/
| |