Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:19:17 -0400 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:52413 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:19:16 -0400 Message-ID: <3D9896F6.8E584DC5@digeo.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:24:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin J. Bligh" CC: lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Anton Blanchard Subject: Re: 2.5.39-mm1 References: <3D9804E1.76C9D4AE@digeo.com> <766838976.1033378149@[10.10.2.3]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2002 18:24:35.0658 (UTC) FILETIME=[A11F5AA0:01C268AE] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 914 Lines: 23 "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > Which looks about the same to me? Me slightly confused. I expect that with the node-local allocations you're not getting a lot of benefit from the lock amortisation. Anton will. It's the lack of improvement of cache-niceness which is irksome. Perhaps the heuristic should be based on recency-of-allocation and not recency-of-freeing. I'll play with that. > Will try > adding the original hot/cold stuff onto 39-mm1 if you like? Well, it's all in the noise floor, isn't it? Better off trying broader tests. I had a play with netperf and the chatroom benchmark. But the latter varied from 80,000 msgs/sec up to 350,000 between runs. - 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/