From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262974AbUEWPLv (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 11:11:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262972AbUEWPLv (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 11:11:51 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:53641 "EHLO ozlabs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262960AbUEWPLu (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 May 2004 11:11:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:08:19 +1000 From: Anton Blanchard To: Gergely Czuczy Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 VS 2.6 fork VS thread creation time test Message-ID: <20040523150819.GB7659@krispykreme> References: <40B066EC.1010107@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > It doesn't matter. That's why you should look at the "ratio" at the end > and not on the pure numbers, they are just bonus "information" Your experimental method leaves a _lot_ to be desired. It matters a great deal. eg It would be worth reading up how wildly different atomic operations are on different x86 chips: http://www.labs.fujitsu.com/en/techinfo/linux/lse-0211/lse-0211.pdf Anton