From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from digeo-nav01.digeo.com (digeo-nav01.digeo.com [192.168.1.233]) by packet.digeo.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA20882 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D9804E1.76C9D4AE@digeo.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:01:37 -0700 From: Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 2.5.39-mm1 References: <3D976206.B2C6A5B8@digeo.com> <735786955.1033347097@[10.10.2.3]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Anton Blanchard List-ID: "Martin J. Bligh" wrote: > > > I must say that based on a small amount of performance testing the > > benefits of the cache warmness thing are disappointing. Maybe 1% if > > you squint. Martin, could you please do a before-and-after on the > > NUMAQ's, double check that it is actually doing the right thing? > > Seems to work just fine: > > 2.5.38-mm1 + my original hot/cold code. > Elapsed: 19.798s User: 191.61s System: 43.322s CPU: 1186.4% > > 2.5.39-mm1 > Elapsed: 19.532s User: 192.25s System: 42.642s CPU: 1203.2% > > And it's a lot more than 1% for me ;-) About 12% of systime > on kernel compile, IIRC. Well that's still a 1% bottom line. But we don't have a comparison which shows the effects of this patch alone. Can you patch -R the five patches and retest sometime? I just get the feeling that it should be doing better. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/