Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755601Ab1BXKHD (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:07:03 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58491 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751275Ab1BXKHB (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:07:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4D662DBF.2020706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:06:55 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Williamson CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Weight-balanced binary tree + KVM growable memory slots using wbtree References: <1298386481.5764.60.camel@x201> <20110222183822.22026.62832.stgit@s20.home> <4D6507C9.1000906@redhat.com> <1298484395.18387.28.camel@x201> <1298489332.18387.56.camel@x201> In-Reply-To: <1298489332.18387.56.camel@x201> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1329 Lines: 34 On 02/23/2011 09:28 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > I had forgotten about<1M mem, so actually the slot configuration was: > > 0:<1M > 1: 1M - 3.5G > 2: 4G+ > > I stacked the deck in favor of the static array (0: 4G+, 1: 1M-3.5G, 2: > <1M), and got these kernbench results: > > base (stdev) reorder (stdev) wbtree (stdev) > --------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+ > Elapsed | 42.809 (0.19) | 42.160 (0.22) | 42.305 (0.23) | > User | 115.709 (0.22) | 114.358 (0.40) | 114.720 (0.31) | > System | 41.605 (0.14) | 40.741 (0.22) | 40.924 (0.20) | > %cpu | 366.9 (1.45) | 367.4 (1.17) | 367.6 (1.51) | > context | 7272.3 (68.6) | 7248.1 (89.7) | 7249.5 (97.8) | > sleeps | 14826.2 (110.6) | 14780.7 (86.9) | 14798.5 (63.0) | > > So, wbtree is only slightly behind reordering, and the standard > deviation suggests the runs are mostly within the noise of each other. > Thanks, Doesn't this indicate we should use reordering, instead of a new data structure? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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/