From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, garloff@suse.de, ak@suse.de
Subject: Re: 2.6.11 vs 2.6.10 slowdown on i686
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:37:24 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42397A04.2060703@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1DBtvc-0002c4-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Ian Pratt wrote:
> Folks,
>
> When we upgraded arch xen/x86 to kernel 2.6.11, we noticed a slowdown
> on a number of micro-benchmarks. In order to investigate, I built
> native (non Xen) i686 uniprocessor kernels for 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 with
> the same configuration and ran lmbench-3.0-a3 on them. The test
> machine was a 2.4GHz Xeon box, gcc 3.3.3 (FC3 default) was used to
> compile the kernels, NOHIGHMEM=y (2-level only).
>
> On the i686 fork and exec benchmarks I found that there's been a
> significant slowdown between 2.6.10 and 2.6.11. Some of the other
> numbers a bit ugly too (see attached).
>
> fork: 166 -> 235 (40% slowdown)
> exec: 857 -> 1003 (17% slowdown)
>
> I'm guessing this is down to the 4 level pagetables. This is rather a
> surprise as I thought the compiler would optimise most of these
> changes away. Apparently not.
>
There are some changes in the current -bk tree (which are a
bit in-flux at the moment) which introduce some optimisations.
They should bring 2-level performance close to par with 2.6.10.
If not, complain again :)
Thanks,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-17 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-17 12:16 2.6.11 vs 2.6.10 slowdown on i686 Ian Pratt
2005-03-17 12:37 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2005-03-17 20:23 ` Ian Pratt
2005-03-18 8:25 ` Kurt Garloff
2005-03-18 8:46 ` Nick Piggin
2005-03-17 18:36 ` Andi Kleen
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=42397A04.2060703@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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