From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:13:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20060929131350.ef1bd156.pj@sgi.com> References: <20060929020232.756637000@us.ibm.com> <20060929021300.034805000@us.ibm.com> <20060928193243.c6766a2a.pj@sgi.com> <1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: lse-tech-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: lse-tech-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Matt Helsley Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, jtk@us.ibm.com, jes@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, sgrubb@redhat.com, hch@lst.de List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com Matt wrote: > Heh, sorry about that. I do have some initial kernbench numbers. Thanks. You mention that one of the patches, Benchmark, reduced time spent in user space. I guess that means that patch hurt something ... though I'm confused ... wouldn't these patches risk spending more time in system space, not less in user space? Do you have any analysis of the other runs? Just looking at raw numbers, when it's not a benchmark I've used recently, kinda fuzzes over my feeble brain. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV