From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com (penguin.e-mind.com [195.223.140.120]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA12288 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:09:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 15:09:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [patch] arca-vm-2.2.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Chuck Lever Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Chuck Lever wrote: >math. i'll post something about this soon. Cool! thanks. >i looked at doug's patch too, and it changes the "page_shift" value >depending on the size of the hash table. again, this *may* cause unwanted >interactions making the hash function degenerate for certain table sizes. Agreed. >ref: a stock 2.2.5 kernel > >p-al: a stock 2.2.5 kernel with your page struct alignment patch applied > >irq: a stock 2.2.5 kernel with your irq alignment patch applied > >both: a stock 2.2.5 kernel with both patches applied *snip* >ref: 4176.4 (s=27.45) > >p-al: 4207.9 (s=8.1) ^^^ it made _difference_ > >irq: 4228.8 (s=11.70) > >both: 4207.9 (s=13.34) ^^^^^ strange... >the irq patch is a clear win over the reference kernel: it shows a Good ;) >consistent 1.25% improvement in overall throughput, and the performance >difference is more than a standard deviation. also, the variance appears >to be less with the irq kernel. i would bet on a more I/O bound load the >improvement would be even more stark. > >i'm not certain why the combination kernel performance was worse than the >irq-only kernel. Hmm I'll think about that... >"Lynch" is a PhD thesis available in postscript at Stanford's web site for >free. it's a study of different coloring methodologies, so it's fairly >broad. Thanks!! I'll search for it soon. Andrea Arcangeli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/