From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268014AbUHXDXf (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:23:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268539AbUHXDXc (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:23:32 -0400 Received: from mail-13.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.45]:63392 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S268014AbUHXDX3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:23:29 -0400 Message-ID: <412AB4AC.8040702@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:23:24 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040810 Debian/1.7.2-2 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin J. Bligh" CC: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Performance of -mm2 and -mm4 References: <336080000.1093280286@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <336080000.1093280286@[10.10.2.4]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Martin J. Bligh wrote: >Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks) > Elapsed System User CPU > 2.6.8.1 43.90 87.76 572.94 1505.67 > 2.6.8.1-mm1 44.26 87.71 574.73 1496.33 > 2.6.8.1-mm2 44.27 90.27 574.84 1502.33 > 2.6.8.1-mm4 45.87 97.60 595.23 1510.00 > >mm2 seems to take slightly (but consistently) more systime than mm1, and >mm4 is significantly worse still ;-( > > Increasing base_timeslice here takes about 10s off the user time, and maybe 1-2 off elapsed. You may see a better improvement because the machine I'm testing on has very small caches; I assume you are using a 32-way NUMAQ with 1-2MB caches?