I know that 2.6 has the ability to get better
performance than the other versions.
But what parts of the kernel has provided to this
performance upgrade?
/albhaf
albhaf wrote:
> I know that 2.6 has the ability to get better
> performance than the other versions.
> But what parts of the kernel has provided to this
> performance upgrade?
Preempt
BIO
Enhanced Locking
There are others I can't think of now, but these are definately high on
the list.
Mike
One of the things I found was that 2.6 detected my full CPU-capacity (nad even a bit more).
Before, with 2.4, it showed my AMD Duron as 799.xxxx but now it is 800.047
Is it because of some specific reason or does it just happen?
/albhaf
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Albert Hafvenstrom wrote:
> One of the things I found was that 2.6 detected my full CPU-capacity
> (nad even a bit more).
> Before, with 2.4, it showed my AMD Duron as 799.xxxx but now it is 800.047
> Is it because of some specific reason or does it just happen?
>
> /albhaf
Are you talking about BogoMips?? This is just how many twinkies
you can eat in a second with the current coding style in the
short timer counter. It has absolutely, positively, nothing to
do with "CPU capacity".
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 14:10, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Are you talking about BogoMips?? This is just how many twinkies
> you can eat in a second with the current coding style in the
> short timer counter. It has absolutely, positively, nothing to
> do with "CPU capacity".
He probably meant MHz. But the same thing. What difference does a
tenth of a MHz matter?
I do have a question about BogoMIPS. I know they don't mean anything,
but why on my Opteron system with two processors that read the same on
the cpu MHz line, do my bogomips vary so much?
processor : 0
cpu MHz : 1393.980
bogomips : 2736.12
processor : 1
cpu MHz : 1393.980
bogomips : 3145.72
--
Chris
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Chris Meadors wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 14:10, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > Are you talking about BogoMips?? This is just how many twinkies
> > you can eat in a second with the current coding style in the
> > short timer counter. It has absolutely, positively, nothing to
> > do with "CPU capacity".
>
> He probably meant MHz. But the same thing. What difference does a
> tenth of a MHz matter?
>
> I do have a question about BogoMIPS. I know they don't mean anything,
> but why on my Opteron system with two processors that read the same on
> the cpu MHz line, do my bogomips vary so much?
>
> processor : 0
> cpu MHz : 1393.980
> bogomips : 2736.12
>
> processor : 1
> cpu MHz : 1393.980
> bogomips : 3145.72
>
Because the loop-counter is called at different times, therefore
the cache has different stuff in it.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
Hi albhaf
Look at the slab allocator, this is a cache
for commonly used objects in the kernel.
For more info see the original document:
The Slab Allocator:
An object caching kernel memory allocator
Jeff Bonwick
and
mm/slab.c
A quick google should turn up the correct paper.
Darren
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004, albhaf wrote:
> I know that 2.6 has the ability to get better
> performance than the other versions.
> But what parts of the kernel has provided to this
> performance upgrade?
>
> /albhaf
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--------------------------------------------------
Darren Williams <dsw AT gelato.unsw.edu.au>
Gelato@UNSW <http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au>
--------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 10:40:19AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> albhaf wrote:
> >I know that 2.6 has the ability to get better
> >performance than the other versions.
> >But what parts of the kernel has provided to this
> >performance upgrade?
>
> Preempt
preempt hurts a bit performance (at least when running a single threaded
app) with the object of helping interactivity, I say in theory because
a 2.4-aa based kernel has a worst case RT scheduler latency lower than
2.6 with preempt enabled (during I/O and some other workload).
Darren Williams wrote:
> Hi albhaf
>
> Look at the slab allocator, this is a cache
> for commonly used objects in the kernel.
>
> For more info see the original document:
> The Slab Allocator:
> An object caching kernel memory allocator
> Jeff Bonwick
Slab is in the 2.4 kernel also...