Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>
> [ dcache-rcu ]
>
> Anton (Blanchard) did some benchmarking with this
> in a 24-way ppc64 box and the results showed why we need this patch.
> Here are some performace comparisons based on a multi-user benchmark
> that Anton ran with vanilla 2.5.40 and 2.5.40-mm.
>
> http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/dcache/summary.png
>
> base = 2.5.40
> base-nops = 2.5.40 but ps command in benchmark scripts commented out
> mm = 2.5.40-mm
> mm-nops = 2.5.40-mm but ps command in benchmark scripts commented out
>
I'm going to need some help understanding what's going on in
there. I assume the test is SDET (there, I said it), which
simulates lots of developers doing developer things on a multiuser
machine. Lots of compiling, groffing, etc.
Why does the removal of `ps' from the test script make such a huge
difference? That's silly, and we should fix it.
And it appears that dcache-rcu made a ~10% difference on a 24-way PPC64,
yes? That is nice, and perhaps we should take that, but it is not a
tremendous speedup.
Thanks.
-
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 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:22 EST
