From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:49:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:49:43 -0500 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:57303 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:49:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:48:37 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Arjan van de Ven cc: linux-kernel Subject: Testing of Ingo/Arjan highpte on 16-way NUMA-Q Message-ID: <162960000.1017355717@flay> In-Reply-To: <20020326191814.F13052@dualathlon.random> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adding your highpte patches to the NUMA-Q seems to make no performance impact whatsoever (just doing kernel compile). The profiles are so similar, it almost looks like it's not doing anything at all ;-) I find this a little strange, as all my ZONE_NORMAL is on node 0, so I'd expected this to have some sort of impact (either positive or negative ;-)). Is there an easy way to test whether this was working or not? Thanks, M. PS. yes I did remember to turn on the 4G-highpte option ;-)