Re: mmotm 2008-09-08-18-32 uploaded
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue Sep 09 2008 - 21:47:39 EST
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:01:42 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:37:41 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Following is comparison with a mmtom based on rc4.
> > > ===
> > > [rc4mm1]
> > > Execl Throughput 3004.4 lps (29.6 secs, 3 samples)
> > > C Compiler Throughput 1017.9 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 5726.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 1124.3 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 576.0 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 125446.5 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > >
> > > [rc5mm1]
> > > Execl Throughput 3006.5 lps (29.8 secs, 3 samples)
> > > C Compiler Throughput 1006.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 4863.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 943.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Shell Scripts (16 concurrent) 482.7 lpm (60.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > Dc: sqrt(2) to 99 decimal places 124804.9 lpm (30.0 secs, 3 samples)
> > > ==
> > > 15% down in shell script test. Any idea ? (scheduler ?)
> >
> > Dunno. There is a largel number of debugging patches at the tail of
> > the series so they should be the first thing to eliminate.
> >
> But I compare mmtom and mmtom, both includes debug series at the tail of series.
oh, sorry, I didn't read closely enough.
Yes, someone broke something.
> I'll revisit this later.
I'd suggest testing linux-next as a first step.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/