Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:24:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:24:14 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-043-054.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.43.54]:8636 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:24:13 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Andrew Morton , Paolo Ciarrocchi Subject: Re: LMbench2.0 results Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 22:02:04 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20020907121854.10290.qmail@linuxmail.org> <3D7A2768.E5C85EB@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <3D7A2768.E5C85EB@digeo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 967 Lines: 26 On Saturday 07 September 2002 18:20, Andrew Morton wrote: > Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > I've just ran lmbench2.0 on my laptop. > > Here the results (again, 2.5.33 seems to be "slow", I don't know why...) > > > > The fork/exec/mmap slowdown is the rmap overhead. I have some stuff > which partialy improves it. It only seems like a big deal if you get out your microscope and focus on the fork times. On the other hand, look at the sh times: the rmap setup time gets lost in the noise. The latter looks more like reality to me. I suspect the overall performance loss on the laptop has more to do with several months of focussing exclusively on the needs of 4-way and higher smp machines. -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/