Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

[Pekka Enberg]

Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:17:58PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Mel,
> >
> > Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > I haven't done much digging in here yet. Between the large page bug and
> > > other patches in my inbox, I haven't had the chance yet but that doesn't
> > > stop anyone else taking a look.
> > So how big does an improvement/regression have to be not to be  
> > considered within noise? I mean, I randomly picked one of the results  
> > ("x86-64 speccpu integer tests") and ran it through my "summarize"  
> > script and got the following results:
> >
> > 		min      max      mean     std_dev
> >   slub		0.96     1.09     1.01     0.04
> >   slub-min	0.95     1.10     1.00     0.04
> >   slub-rvrt	0.90     1.08     0.99     0.05
> >   slqb		0.96     1.07     1.00     0.04
>
> Well, it doesn't make a whole pile of sense to get the average of these ratios
> or the deviation between them. Each of the tests behave very differently.

Uhm, yes. I need to learn to read one of these days.

			Pekka
--
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/