From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:03:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:02:58 -0400 Received: from chunnel.redhat.com ([199.183.24.220]:61172 "EHLO sisko.scot.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:02:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:02:59 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Juergen Doelle Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Hemment , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Steve Fox , Stephen Tweedie Subject: Re: [PATCH] Align VM locks, new spinlock patch Message-ID: <20010924150259.A13817@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3BAB3D65.2FDD170C@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3BAB3D65.2FDD170C@de.ibm.com>; from jdoelle@de.ibm.com on Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:15:17PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:15:17PM +0200, Juergen Doelle wrote: > 2.4.10 2.4.10 + improvement > spinlock patch by patch > > U 103.77 102.14 - 1.6% > 1 96.82 96.77 - 0.1% > 2 155.32 155.62 0.2% > 4 209.45 222.11 6.0% > 8 208.06 234.82 12.9% > > The improvement is less than in previous posted results, because the > pagemap_lru_lock and the lru_list_lock are already cacheline aligned > in 2.4.10 (2.4.9). Do you have CPU utilisation differences for these cases, as well as pure IO bandwidth differences? It would be interesting to see just how much the IO code's internal latency impacts on the final dbench numbers. --Stephen