Message-ID: <407B9D15.2010804@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:56:05 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040401 Debian/1.6-4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kurt Fitzner <kfitzner@excelcia.org>
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.5-mm5
References: <20040412221717.782a4b97.akpm@osdl.org> <407B990A.8050407@excelcia.org>
In-Reply-To: <407B990A.8050407@excelcia.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1354
Lines: 35

Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
>>
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.5/2.6.5-mm5/ 
>>
>>
>> - More CPU scheduler work.  Hopefully this kernel will now address the
>>   regressions that a few people have noted on certain workloads.  We 
>> appear to
>>   be getting close.
> 
> 
> Regressions... from the context, I'm assuming you're not talking
> regression errors here?  I'm assuming these are performance issues?  I
> see a 3.5% drop in compiling speed between 2.4.24 and 2.6.5 on a dual
> Athlon workstation.  I'll test this kernel happily if the scheduler
> tweaks are intended to address this.
> 

Hi Kurt,
The context was actually sched-domains regressions vs numasched,
which might possibly arise in any SMP (even simple dual) system.
So in this case we are interested in -mm regressions compared to
the official 2.6 tree.

2.6 regressions versus 2.4 are still interesting, but a 3.5% drop
in kernel compiling is probably due to HZ=1000 and rmap, although
I think you can expect improvements in rmap overhead soon... try
2.6.5-aa5 if you are interested.
-
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/