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 LAA03588 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D9896F6.8E584DC5@digeo.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:24:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 2.5.39-mm1 References: <3D9804E1.76C9D4AE@digeo.com> <766838976.1033378149@[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: > > Which looks about the same to me? Me slightly confused. I expect that with the node-local allocations you're not getting a lot of benefit from the lock amortisation. Anton will. It's the lack of improvement of cache-niceness which is irksome. Perhaps the heuristic should be based on recency-of-allocation and not recency-of-freeing. I'll play with that. > Will try > adding the original hot/cold stuff onto 39-mm1 if you like? Well, it's all in the noise floor, isn't it? Better off trying broader tests. I had a play with netperf and the chatroom benchmark. But the latter varied from 80,000 msgs/sec up to 350,000 between runs. -- 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/