Re: 2.5.39-mm1

[Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>]

Maneesh Soni wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:55:50 +0530, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > "Martin J. Bligh" wrote:
> >>
> >> Which looks about the same to me? Me slightly confused.
> >
> > I expect that with the node-local allocations you're not getting a lot
> > of benefit from the lock amortisation.  Anton will.
> >
> > It's the lack of improvement of cache-niceness which is irksome. Perhaps
> > the heuristic should be based on recency-of-allocation and not
> > recency-of-freeing.  I'll play with that.
> >
> >> Will try
> >> adding the original hot/cold stuff onto 39-mm1 if you like?
> >
> > Well, it's all in the noise floor, isn't it?  Better off trying broader
> > tests.  I had a play with netperf and the chatroom benchmark.  But the
> > latter varied from 80,000 msgs/sec up to 350,000 between runs. --
> 
> Hello Andrew,
> 
> chatroom benchmark gives more consistent results with some delay
> (sleep 60) between two runs.
> 

oh.  Thanks.  Why?