Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267308AbTBXQND>; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:13:03 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267321AbTBXQNC>; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:13:02 -0500
Received: from to-wiznet.redhat.com ([216.129.200.2]:59379 "EHLO
	touchme.toronto.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267308AbTBXQNC>; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:13:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 11:23:14 -0500
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
       William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
       "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
Message-ID: <20030224112314.H15376@redhat.com>
References: <1510000.1045942974@[10.10.2.4]> <20030222195642.GI1407@work.bitmover.com> <2080000.1045947731@[10.10.2.4]> <20030222231552.GA31268@work.bitmover.com> <3610000.1045957443@[10.10.2.4]> <20030224045616.GB4215@work.bitmover.com> <48940000.1046063797@[10.10.2.4]> <20030224065826.GA5665@work.bitmover.com> <20030224075142.GA10396@holomorphy.com> <20030224154725.GB5665@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20030224154725.GB5665@work.bitmover.com>; from lm@bitmover.com on Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:47:25AM -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1428
Lines: 26

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:47:25AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If you were looking at the problem assuming that the same code had to
> run on uniprocessor and a 1000 way smp, right now, today, and designing
> for it, I doubt very much we'd have anything to argue about.  A lot of
> what I'm saying starts to become obviously true as you increase the 
> number of CPUs but engineers are always seduced into making it go 2x 
> farther than it does today.  Unfortunately, each of those 2x increases
> comes at some cost and they add up.

Good point.  However, we are in a position to compare test results of 
older linux kernels against newer, and to recompile code out of the 
kernel for specific applications.  I'm curious if there is a collection 
of lmbench results of hand configured and compiled kernels vs the vendor 
module based kernels across 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and recent 2.5 on the same 
uniprocessor and dual processor configuration.  That would really give 
us a better idea of how a properly tuned kernel vs what people actually 
use for support reasons is costing us, and if we're winning or losing.

		-ben
-- 
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a>
-
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/