Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:40:15 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/27] Latest numa/core release, v16 |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> So because I did not have an old-glibc system like David's, I > did not know the actual page fault rate. If it is high enough > then nonlinear effects might cause such effects. > > This is an entirely valid line of inquiry IMO.
Btw., when comparing against 'mainline' I routinely use a vanilla kernel that has the same optimization applied. (first I make sure it's not a regression to vanilla.)
I do that to factor out the linear component of the independent speedup: it would not be valid to compare vanilla against numa/core+optimization, but the comparison has to be:
vanilla + optimization vs. numa/core + optimization
I did that with last night's numbers as well.
So any of this can only address a regression if a non-linear factor is in play.
Since I have no direct access to a regressing system I have to work with the theories that I can think of: one had a larger effect, the other had a smaller effect, the third one had no effect on David's system.
How would you have done it instead?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |