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, 30 Sep 2002 23:46:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:46:32 -0400 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:64717 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:46:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3D991BD4.1191F6C6@digeo.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:51:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.38 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: maneesh@in.ibm.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.39-mm1 References: <3D9804E1.76C9D4AE@digeo.com> <3D9896F6.8E584DC5@digeo.com> <200210010346.g913ktfP148022@northrelay01.pok.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2002 03:51:51.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[E035EC00:01C268FD] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?