Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:06:55 +0200 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Weight-balanced binary tree + KVM growable memory slots using wbtree |
| |
On 02/23/2011 09:28 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > I had forgotten about<1M mem, so actually the slot configuration was: > > 0:<1M > 1: 1M - 3.5G > 2: 4G+ > > I stacked the deck in favor of the static array (0: 4G+, 1: 1M-3.5G, 2: > <1M), and got these kernbench results: > > base (stdev) reorder (stdev) wbtree (stdev) > --------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+ > Elapsed | 42.809 (0.19) | 42.160 (0.22) | 42.305 (0.23) | > User | 115.709 (0.22) | 114.358 (0.40) | 114.720 (0.31) | > System | 41.605 (0.14) | 40.741 (0.22) | 40.924 (0.20) | > %cpu | 366.9 (1.45) | 367.4 (1.17) | 367.6 (1.51) | > context | 7272.3 (68.6) | 7248.1 (89.7) | 7249.5 (97.8) | > sleeps | 14826.2 (110.6) | 14780.7 (86.9) | 14798.5 (63.0) | > > So, wbtree is only slightly behind reordering, and the standard > deviation suggests the runs are mostly within the noise of each other. > Thanks,
Doesn't this indicate we should use reordering, instead of a new data structure?
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |