> "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. --
Hello Andrew,
chatroom benchmark gives more consistent results with some delay
(sleep 60) between two runs.
Maneesh
-- Maneesh Soni IBM Linux Technology Center, IBM India Software Lab, Bangalore. Phone: +91-80-5044999 email: maneesh@in.ibm.com http://lse.sourceforge.net/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/