Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:13:50 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, jtk@us.ibm.com, jes@sgi.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com,
       viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
       sgrubb@redhat.com, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [RFC][PATCH 02/10] Task watchers v2 Benchmark
Message-Id: <20060929131350.ef1bd156.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20060929020232.756637000@us.ibm.com>
	<20060929021300.034805000@us.ibm.com>
	<20060928193243.c6766a2a.pj@sgi.com>
	<1159558733.3286.64.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 899
Lines: 21

Matt wrote:
> Heh, sorry about that. I do have some initial kernbench numbers.

Thanks.  You mention that one of the patches, Benchmark, reduced
time spent in user space.  I guess that means that patch hurt
something ... though I'm confused ... wouldn't these patches risk
spending more time in system space, not less in user space?

Do you have any analysis of the other runs?  Just looking at raw
numbers, when it's not a benchmark I've used recently, kinda fuzzes
over my feeble brain.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/