Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:04:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:04:50 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]:49350 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:04:49 -0400 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Re: IPC lock patch performance improvement To: Hugh Dickins Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, , "Mingming Cao" , "Bill Hartner" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 (Intl) 21 March 2000 Message-ID: From: "Duc Vianney" Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:08:07 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML072/01/M/IBM(Release 5.0.10 SPR# MIAS5B3GZN |June 28, 2002) at 08/08/2002 01:08:08 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 949 Lines: 29 >Please show me I'm wrong, but so far as I can see (from source and >breakpoints) LMbench never touches the SysV IPC code, which is the only >code affected by Mingming's proposed IPC locking changes. I believe >LMbench tests InterProcessCommunication via pipes and sockets, >not via the SysV IPC msg sem and shm. Your observation was correct. LMbench tests Interprocess communication using pipes and sockets. Mingming Cao's IPC lock patch was not touched by LMbench. The reason for the performance gain when applying the patch is not yet clear and under investigation. I will share my analysis once it is completed. I do realize that there is a variance in the data generated by LMbench. Duc. - 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/