Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:41:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:41:39 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:28616 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:41:38 -0400 Message-Id: <200210010346.g913ktfP148022@northrelay01.pok.ibm.com> User-Agent: Pan/0.11.2 (Unix) From: "Maneesh Soni" To: "Andrew Morton" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin.J.Bligh" <3D9896F6.8E584DC5@digeo.com> Reply-To: maneesh@in.ibm.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1283 Lines: 37 On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:55:50 +0530, Andrew Morton wrote: > "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. -- Hello Andrew, chatroom benchmark gives more consistent results with some delay (sleep 60) between two runs. Maneesh -- Maneesh Soni IBM Linux Technology Center, IBM India Software Lab, Bangalore. Phone: +91-80-5044999 email: maneesh@in.ibm.com http://lse.sourceforge.net/ - 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/