From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754110AbZBPTrc@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754110AbZBPTrc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:47:32 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751745AbZBPTrX
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:47:23 -0500
Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:39590 "EHLO
	mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751516AbZBPTrX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:47:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4999C1CE.8080002@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:43:10 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
       "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
References: <20090123154653.GA14517@wotan.suse.de> <200902041748.41801.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090204152709.GA4799@csn.ul.ie> <200902051459.30064.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090216184200.GA31264@csn.ul.ie> <4999BBE6.2080003@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090216194157.GB31264@csn.ul.ie>
In-Reply-To: <20090216194157.GB31264@csn.ul.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:17:58PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Hi Mel,
>>
>> Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> I haven't done much digging in here yet. Between the large page bug and
>>> other patches in my inbox, I haven't had the chance yet but that doesn't
>>> stop anyone else taking a look.
>> So how big does an improvement/regression have to be not to be  
>> considered within noise? I mean, I randomly picked one of the results  
>> ("x86-64 speccpu integer tests") and ran it through my "summarize"  
>> script and got the following results:
>>
>> 		min      max      mean     std_dev
>>   slub		0.96     1.09     1.01     0.04
>>   slub-min	0.95     1.10     1.00     0.04
>>   slub-rvrt	0.90     1.08     0.99     0.05
>>   slqb		0.96     1.07     1.00     0.04
>>
> 
> Well, it doesn't make a whole pile of sense to get the average of these ratios
> or the deviation between them. Each of the tests behave very differently.

Uhm, yes. I need to learn to read one of these days.

			Pekka