On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I'm struggling a bit to understand these numbers. Bigger is better, I > > assume? In what units are these numbers? > > No less is better. These are cycle counts. Hmmm... We discussed these > cycle counts so much in the last week that I forgot to mention that. > > > > Page allocator pass through > > > --------------------------- > > > There is a significant difference in the columns marked with a * because > > > of the way that allocations for page sized objects are handled. > > > > OK, but what happened to the third pair of columns (Concurrent Alloc, > > Kmalloc) for 1024 and 2048-byte allocations? They seem to have become > > significantly slower? > > There is a significant performance increase there. That is the main point > of the patch. > > > Thanks for running the numbers, but it's still a bit hard to work out > > whether these changes are an aggregate benefit? > > There is a drawback because of the additional code introduced in the fast > path. However, the regular kmalloc case shows improvements throughout. > This is in particular of importance for SMP systems. We see an improvement > even for 2 processors. umm, OK. When you have time, could you please whizz up a clearer changelog for this one? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/