From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268486AbUHXD07 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:26:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268479AbUHXD06 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:26:58 -0400 Received: from jade.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.136]:26583 "EHLO jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268539AbUHXD0V (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:26:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:26:13 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Nick Piggin cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Performance of -mm2 and -mm4 Message-ID: <16660000.1093317972@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <412AB4AC.8040702@cyberone.com.au> References: <336080000.1093280286@[10.10.2.4]> <412AB4AC.8040702@cyberone.com.au> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> Kernbench: (make -j vmlinux, maximal tasks) >> Elapsed System User CPU >> 2.6.8.1 43.90 87.76 572.94 1505.67 >> 2.6.8.1-mm1 44.26 87.71 574.73 1496.33 >> 2.6.8.1-mm2 44.27 90.27 574.84 1502.33 >> 2.6.8.1-mm4 45.87 97.60 595.23 1510.00 >> >> mm2 seems to take slightly (but consistently) more systime than mm1, and >> mm4 is significantly worse still ;-( >> >> > > Increasing base_timeslice here takes about 10s off the user time, > and maybe 1-2 off elapsed. You may see a better improvement because > the machine I'm testing on has very small caches; I assume you are > using a 32-way NUMAQ with 1-2MB caches? 16-way with 2MB caches. Doing 256 as opposed to 64 gives a little less user time, more systime at the low end, and a wash with more tasks. Not much affects elapsed though. I'll try 16, then backing out the sched patch, and what Jesse suggested as well. M.