Rick wrote..
>Note that Mala said "I measured the cycles for only the
>initialization code in alloc_skb and __kfree_skb" which could mean that
>even other parts of alloc_skb() or __kfree_skb() may have gotten worse
>and you would not have known.
Please look at my reply to Ben LeHaise which has the cycles for
alloc_skb() and __kfree_skb(). You don't have to guess that.
> Later she admits, "As the scope of the
>code measured widens the percentage improvement comes down" and finally
>observes "We measured it in a web serving workload and found that we
>get 0.7% improvement" which is practically in the noise.
That was initial results which had more than the posted patch. We are
still working on getting numbers.
>Dave's
>observation was that it was slightly worse (0.35%).
Are you basing this 0.35% degradation on your profile. According to
Dave's SPECweb99 results there is a 2.97% improvement in simultaneous
connections with my patch. Is that right Dave?
Regards,
Mala
Mala Anand
IBM Linux Technology Center - Kernel Performance
E-mail:manand@us.ibm.com
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/linuxperf
Phone:838-8088; Tie-line:678-8088
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 23 2002 - 22:00:29 EST