From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267793AbUHUUf4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:35:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267797AbUHUUf4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:35:56 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:53647 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267793AbUHUUfy (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:35:54 -0400 From: Jesse Barnes To: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.6.8.1-mm3 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:35:45 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040820031919.413d0a95.akpm@osdl.org> <200408211559.41655.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <20040821202435.GA1510@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20040821202435.GA1510@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408211635.46227.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:24 pm, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Yet this criterion involves no performance metric; if it were a > benchmark it would quantify performance in a meaningful, reproducible, > and cross-system comparable way. AFAICT it's just being used as a > stress test for the dcache RCU issue. Sorry, I should have been clearer, I was only disagreeing with the last part: "There is also precisely zero relevance the benchmark has to anything real users would do." Making kernbench run fast isn't a priority, but making sure it doesn't run slow and hurt other apps is important, so in that sense it's a useful benchmark, even if we're just using it as a load like you say above. > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 03:59:41PM -0400, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Yep, I'm very excited about this. It makes working with such systems to > > improve other things infinitely easier (i.e. possible). > > Stress test again... Huh? I guess booting on a machine this big is something of a stress test. :) > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 03:59:41PM -0400, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Well, this isn't a very good benchmark for discovering things that we > > don't already know (e.g. dcache and RCU issues). Now that things appear > > to be working however, we can start doing more realistic benchmarks. > > I'll be happy to see those happen instead of kernel compiles. =) Yep, me too (though kernbench *is* frighteningly easy to setup and run :). > I can take it for a spin here to make sure it does the right thing. Ok, thanks. Jesse