Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Weight-balanced binary tree + KVM growable memoryslots using wbtree

[Avi Kivity]

On 02/23/2011 09:28 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> I had forgotten about<1M mem, so actually the slot configuration was:
>
> 0:<1M
> 1: 1M - 3.5G
> 2: 4G+
>
> I stacked the deck in favor of the static array (0: 4G+, 1: 1M-3.5G, 2:
> <1M), and got these kernbench results:
>
>              base (stdev)    reorder (stdev)   wbtree (stdev)
> --------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
> Elapsed |  42.809 (0.19)  |  42.160 (0.22) |  42.305 (0.23) |
> User    | 115.709 (0.22)  | 114.358 (0.40) | 114.720 (0.31) |
> System  |  41.605 (0.14)  |  40.741 (0.22) |  40.924 (0.20) |
> %cpu    |   366.9 (1.45)  |   367.4 (1.17) |   367.6 (1.51) |
> context |  7272.3 (68.6)  |  7248.1 (89.7) |  7249.5 (97.8) |
> sleeps  | 14826.2 (110.6) | 14780.7 (86.9) | 14798.5 (63.0) |
>
> So, wbtree is only slightly behind reordering, and the standard
> deviation suggests the runs are mostly within the noise of each other.
> Thanks,

Doesn't this indicate we should use reordering, instead of a new data 
structure?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/