From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, garloff@suse.de, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: 2.6.11 vs 2.6.10 slowdown on i686
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:37:24 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42397A04.2060703@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1DBtvc-0002c4-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Ian Pratt wrote:
> Folks,
>
> When we upgraded arch xen/x86 to kernel 2.6.11, we noticed a slowdown
> on a number of micro-benchmarks. In order to investigate, I built
> native (non Xen) i686 uniprocessor kernels for 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 with
> the same configuration and ran lmbench-3.0-a3 on them. The test
> machine was a 2.4GHz Xeon box, gcc 3.3.3 (FC3 default) was used to
> compile the kernels, NOHIGHMEM=y (2-level only).
>
> On the i686 fork and exec benchmarks I found that there's been a
> significant slowdown between 2.6.10 and 2.6.11. Some of the other
> numbers a bit ugly too (see attached).
>
> fork: 166 -> 235 (40% slowdown)
> exec: 857 -> 1003 (17% slowdown)
>
> I'm guessing this is down to the 4 level pagetables. This is rather a
> surprise as I thought the compiler would optimise most of these
> changes away. Apparently not.
>
There are some changes in the current -bk tree (which are a
bit in-flux at the moment) which introduce some optimisations.
They should bring 2-level performance close to par with 2.6.10.
If not, complain again :)
Thanks,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-17 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-17 12:16 2.6.11 vs 2.6.10 slowdown on i686 Ian Pratt
2005-03-17 12:37 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2005-03-17 20:23 ` Ian Pratt
2005-03-18 8:25 ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-18 8:46 ` Nick Piggin
2005-03-17 18:36 ` Andi Kleen
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=42397A04.2060703@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--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.