Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:46:50 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: mmotm 2008-09-08-18-32 uploaded |
| |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:01:42 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:37:41 -0700 > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > Following is comparison with a mmtom based on rc4. > > > === > > > [rc4mm1] > > > Execl Throughput 3004.4 lps (29.6 secs, 3 samples) > > > C Compiler Throughput 1017.9 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5726.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1124.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 576.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125446.5 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > > > > [rc5mm1] > > > Execl Throughput 3006.5 lps (29.8 secs, 3 samples) > > > C Compiler Throughput 1006.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 4863.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 943.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 482.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 124804.9 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples) > > > == > > > 15% down in shell script test. Any idea ? (scheduler ?) > > > > Dunno. There is a largel number of debugging patches at the tail of > > the series so they should be the first thing to eliminate. > > > But I compare mmtom and mmtom, both includes debug series at the tail of series.
oh, sorry, I didn't read closely enough.
Yes, someone broke something.
> I'll revisit this later.
I'd suggest testing linux-next as a first step.
| |