From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
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
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC][PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:13:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060929131350.ef1bd156.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
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 <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-29 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-29 2:02 [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/10] Task watchers v2 Task watchers v2 Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:32 ` [Lse-tech] " Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 19:38 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 20:13 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2006-09-30 0:01 ` Matt Helsley
2006-09-30 0:04 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/10] Task watchers v2 Register audit task watcher Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/10] Task watchers v2 Register semundo " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/10] Task watchers v2 Register cpuset " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:31 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 7:52 ` [Lse-tech] " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 8:03 ` Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/10] Task watchers v2 Register NUMA mempolicy " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/10] Task watchers v2 Register IRQ flag tracing " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/10] Task watchers v2 Register lockdep " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/10] Task watchers v2 Register process keyrings " Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:02 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/10] Task watchers v2 Register process events connector Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 2:41 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction Paul Jackson
2006-09-29 8:16 ` [RFC][PATCH] Task watchers and modules (WAS Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction) Matt Helsley
2006-09-29 16:22 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/10] Task watchers v2 Introduction Paul Menage
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=20060929131350.ef1bd156.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jes@sgi.com \
--cc=jtk@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=matthltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sgrubb@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox