From: Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au>
To: kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Cc: dean gaudet <dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:00:27 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <39FD8D0B.B6C0C772@uow.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <39FB02D5.9AF89277@uow.edu.au>, <39F957BC.4289FF10@uow.edu.au> <39F92187.A7621A09@timpanogas.org> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0010270257550.18660-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> <20001027094613.A18382@gruyere.muc.suse.de> <200010271257.VAA24374@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp> <39FAF4C6.3BB04774@uow.edu.au> <39FB02D5.9AF89277@uow.edu.au> <200010300927.SAA05368@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton writes:
> >
> > I agree with me. Could you please test the scalability
> > of this?
>
> Here is the result, measured on 8-way profusion.
Thank you!
> Andrew posted two paches, so called P1 and P2.
Was `P2' the shorter one? It looks like it.
> Req/s
> test10-pre5: 2255 bad performance
> ----
> test9+P2: 5243
> test10-pre5+P1: 5187
> test10-pre5+P2: 5258
>
> P2 may be a little bit better.
I'd be interested in seeing the -DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT
figures.
Dean, it looks like the same problem will occur with flock()-based
serialisation. Does Apache/Linux ever use that option?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-10-30 15:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200010250736.QAA12373@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010251242050.943-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
[not found] ` <200010260138.KAA17028@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
[not found] ` <200010261405.XAA19135@asami.proc.flab.fujitsu.co.jp>
2000-10-27 6:24 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()? (Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) kumon
2000-10-27 6:32 ` Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: " Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27 7:13 ` Alexander Viro
2000-10-27 7:46 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 10:23 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 10:25 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-27 12:57 ` [PATCH] " kumon
2000-10-28 15:46 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-28 15:58 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-28 16:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2000-10-28 16:20 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Alan Cox
2000-10-29 19:45 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-30 6:29 ` Andi Kleen
2000-10-30 15:28 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-30 16:36 ` Rik van Riel
2000-10-30 18:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-10-28 16:46 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-10-30 9:27 ` kumon
2000-10-30 15:00 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2000-10-30 23:24 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-04 5:08 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange " Andrew Morton
2000-11-04 6:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-04 10:54 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of Alan Cox
2000-11-04 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2000-11-05 16:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-05 20:21 ` dean gaudet
2000-11-05 22:43 ` Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:03 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:42 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-04 20:11 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) dean gaudet
2000-11-04 20:43 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange Alan Cox
2000-11-05 4:52 ` dean gaudet
2000-10-31 15:36 ` [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Andrew Morton
2000-11-01 1:02 ` kumon
2000-11-02 11:09 ` kumon
2000-11-02 12:50 ` kumon
2000-11-04 5:07 ` Andrew Morton
2000-10-27 8:17 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2000-10-27 10:11 ` kumon
2000-11-04 5:55 ` Preemptive scheduling of woken-up processes kumon
2000-11-05 4:19 [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9) Dave Wagner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=39FD8D0B.B6C0C772@uow.edu.au \
--to=andrewm@uow.edu.au \
--cc=dean-list-linux-kernel@arctic.org \
--cc=kumon@flab.fujitsu.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.