Re: PATCH 2.3.26: kmalloc GFP_ZERO

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:30:57 -0700


On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:44:51AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:
>
> >same could be said for nearly everything in the kernel.
>
> The only point of such change to improve performances. If the improvement
> make me to be slower somehow I can't agree in an obvious manner at least.
>
> Exactly which is the order of the improvement on PPC and did you measured
> the worst case?

20% or so on kernel compiles. And what do you mean by "Worst case" in
this instance?
If the worst case is when the system is never idle, costs are a false
branch in each getpage.
One question is whether a never idle system represents an interesting
case. I suspect that it takes a very unusual load to get such a
situation and that on, for example, smp servers where the zero page
cache will have the best results, it is the general case that there is a
good bit of idle time.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/